• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why we should NOT build more nuclear power plants now.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: JohnCU
hmm, so true. how could someone who actually works there know anything about what goes on? hell, we might as well ask a doctor to examine a skin rash. oh wait...
Click to expand...
The fact that you're arguing against the statement of a logical fallacy tells me a lot about you. I am an engineer, almost finished with a PhD. Does that make my opinion here more valid than Moonbeam's? No. The validity of our arguments comes from the information and logic contained therein, not the credentials of the one waging the argument.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: JohnCU
hmm, so true. how could someone who actually works there know anything about what goes on? hell, we might as well ask a doctor to examine a skin rash. oh wait...
Click to expand...
The fact that you're arguing against the statement of a logical fallacy tells me a lot about you. I am an engineer, almost finished with a PhD. Does that make my opinion here more valid than Moonbeam's? No. The validity of our arguments comes from the information and logic contained therein, not the credentials of the one waging the argument.
Click to expand...

The fact that he so argues confirms what you suspected but it tells him nothing at all.

The appeal to authority is an appeal by the arrogant who can't question their opinions because of their arrogant authoritarianism. Where he should have personal integrity he has the arrogance of defensive ego, the need to be right and not proven wrong. He is not a scientist, but a man afraid to see his self hate. He has needs he doesn't understand, a need to be right and a fear of being wrong. For him it's not a question of science but an emotional need.

Interestingly, when I speak of emotions and insight into the self, of course, I am called this or that kind of fool, because I am mostly talking to fools who know nothing about themselves. And that was my position, that the greatest authorities in this or that can know nothing about themselves. This fact irks those whose authority is there as a mask, a prop, a certificate on the wall, to replace the self respect they should have and don't. So they gather like toys soldiers in a circle with their foils unsheathed and pretentiously defend their turf.

Also, I made no hard science claims for them to challenge. They only pretend that I did. That is why they stab at the air of their own creation. I made a psychological claim they can't counter so they call me an air head. Hehe, they ride in a boat and mock what divers report from the depth because they have never been there.

I wonder what kind of PhD one can have that makes one deep. I have a PhD in pig shit and a masters in talking to whales and the price of admission to the school I went to was enormous. It cost me everything I held dear and everything I believed.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: JohnCU
hmm, so true. how could someone who actually works there know anything about what goes on? hell, we might as well ask a doctor to examine a skin rash. oh wait...
Click to expand...
The fact that you're arguing against the statement of a logical fallacy tells me a lot about you. I am an engineer, almost finished with a PhD. Does that make my opinion here more valid than Moonbeam's? No. The validity of our arguments comes from the information and logic contained therein, not the credentials of the one waging the argument.
Click to expand...

of course you argue on information and facts, which is what i posted in this thread and the other thread about the nuke worker stopped with an "explosive device". i'm not sure what the issue is...with credentials comes information and facts.

i see your point, though. most of the time people just take things at face value, so and so said so so it must be true.

trust but verify.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: JohnCU
hmm, so true. how could someone who actually works there know anything about what goes on? hell, we might as well ask a doctor to examine a skin rash. oh wait...
Click to expand...
The fact that you're arguing against the statement of a logical fallacy tells me a lot about you. I am an engineer, almost finished with a PhD. Does that make my opinion here more valid than Moonbeam's? No. The validity of our arguments comes from the information and logic contained therein, not the credentials of the one waging the argument.
Click to expand...

The fact that he so argues confirms what you suspected but it tells him nothing at all.

The appeal to authority is an appeal by the arrogant who can't question their opinions because of their arrogant authoritarianism. Where he should have personal integrity he has the arrogance of defensive ego, the need to be right and not proven wrong. He is not a scientist, but a man afraid to see his self hate. He has needs he doesn't understand, a need to be right and a fear of being wrong. For him it's not a question of science but an emotional need.

Interestingly, when I speak of emotions and insight into the self, of course, I am called this or that kind of fool, because I am mostly talking to fools who know nothing about themselves. And that was my position, that the greatest authorities in this or that can know nothing about themselves. This fact irks those whose authority is there as a mask, a prop, a certificate on the wall, to replace the self respect they should have and don't. So they gather like toys soldiers in a circle with their foils unsheathed and pretentiously defend their turf.

Also, I made no hard science claims for them to challenge. They only pretend that I did. That is why they stab at the air of their own creation. I made a psychological claim they can't counter so they call me an air head. Hehe, they ride in a boat and mock what divers report from the depth because they have never been there.

I wonder what kind of PhD one can have that makes one deep. I have a PhD in pig shit and a masters in talking to whales and the price of admission to the school I went to was enormous. It cost me everything I held dear and everything I believed.
Click to expand...

my self hate? what in the name of god are you talking about?
 
Quoting logical fallacies in itself does not disprove arguments made by others. It is simply a cop-out for that can't stand up to real arguments. Real debate doesn't work this way. You have to reply with an argument of your own. For example, if I say "I'm an engineer and I think X", you could dispute my claim by saying "I am also an engineer and I say Y!". Simply quoting logical fallacies (e.g. "AH HA! You used the x fallacy! Your argument is thus null and void!") doesn't contribute anything except a vain attempt to try to make yourself look smarter then you are.

Moonbeam is a perfect example of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". He uses a lot of big words and convoluted mumbo jumbo in order to be incomprehensible. He thinks because he sounds sophisticated that it somehow makes him intelligent. But this would be an example of Proof by verbosity. Try saying what you mean in two sentences, not long diatribes that are only suitable for a high school english class.
 
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Quoting logical fallacies in itself does not disprove arguments made by others. It is simply a cop-out for that can't stand up to real arguments. Real debate doesn't work this way. You have to reply with an argument of your own. For example, if I say "I'm an engineer and I think X", you could dispute my claim by saying "I am also an engineer and I say Y!". Simply quoting logical fallacies (e.g. "AH HA! You used the x fallacy! Your argument is thus null and void!") doesn't contribute anything except a vain attempt to try to make yourself look smarter then you are.

Moonbeam is a perfect example of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". He uses a lot of big words and convoluted mumbo jumbo in order to be incomprehensible. He thinks because he sounds sophisticated that it somehow makes him intelligent. But this would be an example of Proof by verbosity. Try saying what you mean in two sentences, not long diatribes that are only suitable for a high school english class.
Click to expand...

It's not my fault that you feel outclassed by high school English.
 
QuantumPion: Quoting logical fallacies in itself does not disprove arguments made by others.

M: That fact is obvious and nobody claimed otherwise.

QP: It is simply a cop-out for that can't stand up to real arguments.

M: I wish this were high school English. I am going to put 'those' between 'for' and 'that' and assume that was your intent.

QP: Real debate doesn't work this way. You have to reply with an argument of your own. For example, if I say "I'm an engineer and I think X", you could dispute my claim by saying "I am also an engineer and I say Y!".

M: Nonsense. You are simply preserving the argument by authority if you say the rebuttal has to come from an engineer. Nor is any significant debate confined to the subject of engineering. You should try to think about what you write. They teach that in high school, no?

QP: Simply quoting logical fallacies (e.g. "AH HA! You used the x fallacy! Your argument is thus null and void!") doesn't contribute anything except a vain attempt to try to make yourself look smarter then you are.

M: Maybe I overestimate you. This is pretty dumb. Pointing out logical fallacies is not supposed to further an argument in any other way than rebutting any point attempted to be made on that score. It simply notifies the other party he has made an illegal move and must try again or shut up. Just because somebody makes somebody else look stupid doesn't make them smart, right? For a scientist you speak with great imprecision in my opinion.

 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Quoting logical fallacies in itself does not disprove arguments made by others. It is simply a cop-out for that can't stand up to real arguments. Real debate doesn't work this way. You have to reply with an argument of your own. For example, if I say "I'm an engineer and I think X", you could dispute my claim by saying "I am also an engineer and I say Y!". Simply quoting logical fallacies (e.g. "AH HA! You used the x fallacy! Your argument is thus null and void!") doesn't contribute anything except a vain attempt to try to make yourself look smarter then you are.

Moonbeam is a perfect example of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". He uses a lot of big words and convoluted mumbo jumbo in order to be incomprehensible. He thinks because he sounds sophisticated that it somehow makes him intelligent. But this would be an example of Proof by verbosity. Try saying what you mean in two sentences, not long diatribes that are only suitable for a high school english class.
Click to expand...

It's not my fault that you feel outclassed by high school English.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with QuantumPion here, and this is comming from someone who has a list of logical fallacies as their sig. The logical fallacies are all for the most part based on GOOD arguments, however the problem comes when you miss the reason each one is a good argument and simply base your decision on the opinion itself and not its basis. An expert in an area is MUCH MUCH more likely to be right than someone like MoonBeam, however the fact that they are an expert does not PROVE them right, it is the facts that they are basing this argument on which causes them to be right. More or less EVERY argument can be said to be a logical fallacy and yelling out "genetic fallacy" or "appeal to authority" randomly doesn't make you smart just like yelling out "self hatred" also doesn't make you smart. Its is certainly possible that the authority figure is wrong and it is also possible that we all love nuclear power because we hate ourselves (I still don't get this logic after being accused of it 100 times by MoonBeam, but who knows?!!?).

For example if I am arguing that nuclear waste is unlikely to seep out of a geological formation in the future then I cannot simply say I am an engineer and therefore I know these things. I would cite the Oklo reactor and the movement of fission fragements in that area. Or look at the movements of oil and natural gas stored under geologically stable capstones throughout the world. Or for example helium which is the second hardest element to trap ever which is built up in rocks under the surface. The spent fuel in vitrified into glass and stored underground. The fuel is not water soluble, I see people thinking like its gonna leak down into the water supply, this is bogus, its a solid ceramic material encased in glass which is then encased by steal and then concrete. If you sunk it to the bottom of hte ocean it would be good for a tens of millions of years until a new mountain range formed by plate tectonics. And all it needs to be good for is a few thousand years before it is no more radioactive than some types of natural rocks. And even less time if you use an actinide burning reactor to neutralize the most dangerous components (this requires reprocessing to extract the dangerous elements from the relatively benign uranium).
 
BT: I 100% agree with QuantumPion here, and this is comming from someone who has a list of logical fallacies as their sig.

M: My, an appeal to numbers. My, an appeal to freedom via awareness and familiarity.

Us drunks all think alcohol is good and we know what alcohol is.

BT: The logical fallacies are all for the most part based on GOOD arguments, however the problem comes when you miss the reason each one is a good argument and simply base your decision on the opinion itself and not its basis.

M: Really? I wouldn't know because I have no idea what this means. Why not talk specifics if your abstractions aren't intelligible. Say what you really mean, please.

BT: An expert in an area is MUCH MUCH more likely to be right than someone like MoonBeam, however the fact that they are an expert does not PROVE them right, it is the facts that they are basing this argument on which causes them to be right.

M: Hehe, you ARE an arrogant ass. You clearly are no expert in thinking and the topic 'here' is logic and you have, sadly, little to offer.

And an engineer is somebody who can happily build a bridge to nowhere because his focus is often too narrow.

BT: More or less EVERY argument can be said to be a logical fallacy and yelling out "genetic fallacy" or "appeal to authority" randomly doesn't make you smart just like yelling out "self hatred" also doesn't make you smart.

M: Why don't you invent a whole new field of fiction. You certainly have the talent. You can just pull stuff out your ass.

You doubtless got called on your fallacy because it was a howler and you have that link in your sig.

BT: Its is certainly possible that the authority figure is wrong and it is also possible that we all love nuclear power because we hate ourselves (I still don't get this logic after being accused of it 100 times by MoonBeam, but who knows?!!?).

M: It might also be the story that a carpenter's answer to everything is a hammer.

You should know, also, I guess, that because you do hate yourself you flail about when that fact is mentioned. You are magnetized by me in your need for denial.

BT: For example if I am arguing that nuclear waste is unlikely to seep out of a geological formation in the future then I cannot simply say I am an engineer and therefore I know these things. I would cite the Oklo reactor and the movement of fission fragements in that area. Or look at the movements of oil and natural gas stored under geologically stable capstones throughout the world. Or for example helium which is the second hardest element to trap ever which is built up in rocks under the surface. The spent fuel in vitrified into glass and stored underground. The fuel is not water soluble, I see people thinking like its gonna leak down into the water supply, this is bogus, its a solid ceramic material encased in glass which is then encased by steal and then concrete. If you sunk it to the bottom of hte ocean it would be good for a tens of millions of years until a new mountain range formed by plate tectonics. And all it needs to be good for is a few thousand years before it is no more radioactive than some types of natural rocks. And even less time if you use an actinide burning reactor to neutralize the most dangerous components (this requires reprocessing to extract the dangerous elements from the relatively benign uranium).

I am not arguing any of that. I've known all that crap for years and years and years. I am arguing that these ideas are very old and the waste has never been so stored. There is radioactive waste in waste dumps all over the surface of the earth. We have never cleaned it up and stored it safely because we are pigs and we never will because nobody wants that shit in their own back yard. These facts are not a matter of science. It's simply what you see when you look. You are an idealistic dreamer of an engineer and I'm just a dude with my feet on the ground. You dream and I see and your degree don't mean crap to me because I see that you're blind.

Again, I am not arguing against your science. Ah science, how I love thee with all my being, my light, my muse and my talent.
 
At the risk of making the thread get even worse I will respond to this one statement:

"M: Really? I wouldn't know because I have no idea what this means. Why not talk specifics if your abstractions aren't intelligible. Say what you really mean, please. "

OK, below are some examples.

Appeal to authority:
This logical fallacy is based on the fact that someone with alot of experience in an area is much more likely to have a good understanding of the facts involved then a newcomer to a certain topic. Hopefully this makes sense to most people, certainly our law recognizes this fact, the opinion of an "expert witness" is given much more respect than a random person off the street. HOWEVER the problem comes from blindly following authority figures without ever questioning the reasoning, the fact an authority in an area said something does not prove it right on its own, the person could just as easily be lying, if they are unable to bring the fact needed to prove their argument then they are just as wrong as anyone else.

Bandwagon Fallacy:

This is another good one. The GOOD argument here is that if the vast majority of people believe something than it is LIKELY to be true. Most people believe 1+1=2, most people believe that the New England Patriots are a better football team than the St Louis Rams, most people believe that the earth is round. In all these cases most people are RIGHT. However again there is a big problem in simply following the crowd because they are not ALWAYS right. There was a time most people believed that the earth was flat, most people believed that black people were inferior to whites, most people believed that the sun revolved around the earth etc... However again, the proof lies in whether or not the facts support a premise not if 99% of the people do. So 99% of the people might have believed that the earth was flat, but the facts proved them all wrong.

Genetic Fallacy:

For those who don't know, this is where you discount an argument because it comes from a source you do not support. Again, this makes sense, you don't put much belief in what you read in the tabloids, or what someone you know to be a liar or a bad person says to you, but again the fact that you don't like someone does not make them wrong. For example you might not like Al Gore, but the fact you don't like him doesn't change the fact that the earth is getting warmer. You might think Intel is a bad company but that doesn't change the fact that the Core 2 processor is more powerful than the current AMD processors. Yet again, the accuracy of the conclusion is based on the facts supporting it, not which individuals support it.
 
BT: At the risk of making the thread get even worse I will respond to this one statement:

"M: Really? I wouldn't know because I have no idea what this means. Why not talk specifics if your abstractions aren't intelligible. Say what you really mean, please. "

OK, below are some examples.

M: I know what the fallacies are. I want you to tell me how they apply to me or my Sig, which I thought was what you intended to imply.
 
I intended to imply that simply calling out "Appeal to Authority" does not prove or disprove the information given. If you want to attack me on the basis of facts that is fine, however attempting to disregard everyone else's opinion by simply calling claiming they are using a logical fallacy proves nothing. That having been said this thread is now dead and further replies are meaningless, right now is has simply devolved into an argument over semantics and the original point is unlikely to be resurrected.
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I intended to imply that simply calling out "Appeal to Authority" does not prove or disprove the information given. If you want to attack me on the basis of facts that is fine, however attempting to disregard everyone else's opinion by simply calling claiming they are using a logical fallacy proves nothing. That having been said this thread is now dead and further replies are meaningless, right now is has simply devolved into an argument over semantics and the original point is unlikely to be resurrected.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? I don't know if you noticed, but an attempt was made to quash MY argument by an appeal to authority, not yours, and to which CycloWizard called foul, not me. He went on to add that "The validity of our arguments comes from the information and logic contained therein, not the credentials of the one waging the argument." Nobody made any case that calling out "Appeal to Authority' proves or disproves anything. Again, the appeal was directed at me. Pointing that out didn't validate or invalidate my argument. It invalidated the appeal made against me. It invalidated your claim to special dispensation as an engineer. It didn't invalidate your argument only your special claim that is has validity beyond my own. If the thread is ruined it's because you state the absurd and don't think. Pointing that out is may appear as a loss to you but not to me.

All you have done is fail to recognize that I challenged nuclear power from a direction that had nothing to do with anything you said and your need to defend the correctness, but irrelevance of what you claimed and which were basically off the subject of the thread. You didn't get what was going on and now you try to blame me. Pretty childish, I think.

So, I did not say that safe storage methods aren't available, and nobody said that any appeal to authority invalidates a claim. It invalidates the appeal as logical or deserving of weight in and of itself. The claim I am making is that we have never cleaned up our nuclear mess and this is predictive of who we are and how we will act in future. I said that people don't want the waste stored anywhere near them. If you want to argue with me argue these two, what I call facts.
 
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Quoting logical fallacies in itself does not disprove arguments made by others. It is simply a cop-out for that can't stand up to real arguments. Real debate doesn't work this way. You have to reply with an argument of your own. For example, if I say "I'm an engineer and I think X", you could dispute my claim by saying "I am also an engineer and I say Y!". Simply quoting logical fallacies (e.g. "AH HA! You used the x fallacy! Your argument is thus null and void!") doesn't contribute anything except a vain attempt to try to make yourself look smarter then you are.
Click to expand...
I never said that it made my argument right. I simply said that it made his argument wrong. I can't try to logically argue against an illogical argument. "I'm an engineer, and I say that X is true" can't be argued against. I can only argue against the claim that X is true, and/or point out that his being an engineer has no bearing on whether X is true or false. Since his argument had the form "Moonbeam has no credentials, therefore x is false," all that is required for me to rebut him is to point out that MB's credentials or lack thereof have absolutely zero bearing on whether X is true or false.
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I 100% agree with QuantumPion here, and this is comming from someone who has a list of logical fallacies as their sig. The logical fallacies are all for the most part based on GOOD arguments, however the problem comes when you miss the reason each one is a good argument and simply base your decision on the opinion itself and not its basis. An expert in an area is MUCH MUCH more likely to be right than someone like MoonBeam, however the fact that they are an expert does not PROVE them right, it is the facts that they are basing this argument on which causes them to be right. More or less EVERY argument can be said to be a logical fallacy and yelling out "genetic fallacy" or "appeal to authority" randomly doesn't make you smart just like yelling out "self hatred" also doesn't make you smart. Its is certainly possible that the authority figure is wrong and it is also possible that we all love nuclear power because we hate ourselves (I still don't get this logic after being accused of it 100 times by MoonBeam, but who knows?!!?).
Click to expand...
You have a link to a list of fallacies in your sig, but that does not imply that you understand what makes them fallacies. Not every argument may be rebutted by invoking a fallacy - only fallacious arguments can be rebutted in this manner. If I make an argument with pure logic and/or true facts, then you cannot rebut it by invoking fallacy. The fallacies are not based on any arguments, though you say that they are, "all for the most part based on GOOD arguments." They point out flaws in erroneous logic (that is, arguments that are not actually logically sound), nothing more and nothing less. They make no assumptions except that logic is what it is. Your misunderstanding of this concept is solidified in your subsequent posts. Hopefully you can be a little more careful next time in your interpretation of what a fallacy really is to avoid future mistakes.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You have a link to a list of fallacies in your sig, but that does not imply that you understand what makes them fallacies. Not every argument may be rebutted by invoking a fallacy - only fallacious arguments can be rebutted in this manner. If I make an argument with pure logic and/or true facts, then you cannot rebut it by invoking fallacy. The fallacies are not based on any arguments, though you say that they are, "all for the most part based on GOOD arguments." They point out flaws in erroneous logic (that is, arguments that are not actually logically sound), nothing more and nothing less. They make no assumptions except that logic is what it is. Your misunderstanding of this concept is solidified in your subsequent posts. Hopefully you can be a little more careful next time in your interpretation of what a fallacy really is to avoid future mistakes.
Click to expand...

I am confused by your post, you seem at first to be supporting what I said and then afterwards saying that I am wrong 😕. It would seem the disagreement comes from my statement that the logical fallacies are all for the most part based on "GOOD" arguments, so I will try to further refine that statement. I'm pretty sure I know what I am talking about here, so I think it is likely that the disagreement is in the communication of my points and not in the points themselves.

I am simply pointing out that if you look at many of these fallacies (as linked in my sig) that they are very similar to valid arguments. For example the beginning of this whole discussion was because of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Now can you honestly say that you do not take the arguments of authorities at any higher weight than those of other people. I don't know about you, but when I am at college taking EE classes I pretty much take what my professors are saying at face value. When my EE professor says "V=IR" I do not go and run of to the library to get a second and third opinion, I trust what they say because they have a doctorate in this subject. Now of course the fact that they have a PHD and 20 years of experience does not PROVE them right, that proof comes from experimentation done hundreds of years ago. It would be silly for me to yell out "this professor keeps using appeal to authority therefore I shouldn't trust what he says". The fallacy merely points out that the fact he has a piece of paper saying he has a PHD doesn't 100% prove him right, but it DOES make him alot more likely to be right then a person with no experience in electrical engineering.

Hopefully that example makes it more clear what I am trying to say. Similar examples can be made for most of the other fallacies and I already tried to do that once in this thread. The "GOOD" part of the "appeal to authority" argument is that authorities ARE more likely to be right than others. HOWEVER they are not guaranteed to be right and if you have evidence showing they are wrong then you can dispute what they say, but simply proclaiming "appeal to authority" proves nothing on its own.
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You have a link to a list of fallacies in your sig, but that does not imply that you understand what makes them fallacies. Not every argument may be rebutted by invoking a fallacy - only fallacious arguments can be rebutted in this manner. If I make an argument with pure logic and/or true facts, then you cannot rebut it by invoking fallacy. The fallacies are not based on any arguments, though you say that they are, "all for the most part based on GOOD arguments." They point out flaws in erroneous logic (that is, arguments that are not actually logically sound), nothing more and nothing less. They make no assumptions except that logic is what it is. Your misunderstanding of this concept is solidified in your subsequent posts. Hopefully you can be a little more careful next time in your interpretation of what a fallacy really is to avoid future mistakes.
Click to expand...

I am confused by your post, you seem at first to be supporting what I said and then afterwards saying that I am wrong 😕. It would seem the disagreement comes from my statement that the logical fallacies are all for the most part based on "GOOD" arguments, so I will try to further refine that statement. I'm pretty sure I know what I am talking about here, so I think it is likely that the disagreement is in the communication of my points and not in the points themselves.

I am simply pointing out that if you look at many of these fallacies (as linked in my sig) that they are very similar to valid arguments. For example the beginning of this whole discussion was because of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Now can you honestly say that you do not take the arguments of authorities at any higher weight than those of other people. I don't know about you, but when I am at college taking EE classes I pretty much take what my professors are saying at face value. When my EE professor says "V=IR" I do not go and run of to the library to get a second and third opinion, I trust what they say because they have a doctorate in this subject. Now of course the fact that they have a PHD and 20 years of experience does not PROVE them right, that proof comes from experimentation done hundreds of years ago. It would be silly for me to yell out "this professor keeps using appeal to authority therefore I shouldn't trust what he says". The fallacy merely points out that the fact he has a piece of paper saying he has a PHD doesn't 100% prove him right, but it DOES make him alot more likely to be right then a person with no experience in electrical engineering.

Hopefully that example makes it more clear what I am trying to say. Similar examples can be made for most of the other fallacies and I already tried to do that once in this thread. The "GOOD" part of the "appeal to authority" argument is that authorities ARE more likely to be right than others. HOWEVER they are not guaranteed to be right and if you have evidence showing they are wrong then you can dispute what they say, but simply proclaiming "appeal to authority" proves nothing on its own.
Click to expand...

FTW
 
BT: I am confused by your post, you seem at first to be supporting what I said and then afterward saying that I am wrong 😕. It would seem the disagreement comes from my statement that the logical fallacies are all for the most part based on "GOOD" arguments, so I will try to further refine that statement. I'm pretty sure I know what I am talking about here, so I think it is likely that the disagreement is in the communication of my points and not in the points themselves.

M: My opinion is that your points had nothing to do with anything, that they are irrelevant and not germane to the discussion.

I am simply pointing out that if you look at many of these fallacies (as linked in my sig) that they are very similar to valid arguments. For example the beginning of this whole discussion was because of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Now can you honestly say that you do not take the arguments of authorities at any higher weight than those of other people.

M: That is now what happened. Somebody else was implying that my arguments carried little weight because I am alleged not to be an authority. Nobody was saying yours are worthless because you are.

BT: I don't know about you, but when I am at college taking EE classes I pretty much take what my professors are saying at face value. When my EE professor says "V=IR" I do not go and run of to the library to get a second and third opinion, I trust what they say because they have a doctorate in this subject. Now of course the fact that they have a PHD and 20 years of experience does not PROVE them right, that proof comes from experimentation done hundreds of years ago. It would be silly for me to yell out "this professor keeps using appeal to authority therefore I shouldn't trust what he says".

M: But he is not appealing to authority. You are imputing it to him. And you are very different than me. I have questioned authority all of my life and learned long ago the the so called wise men are fools. You do not have the habit of questioning, it would seem, so you fail to note that the problem is when an expert in some tiny area of knowledge thinks that makes him an authority in everything. Nuclear engineers have no better opinion as to whether we should build nuclear power than any Mother on the street. In fact they have less authority because they obviously are close to the matter and therefore potentially very biased.

BT: The fallacy merely points out that the fact he has a piece of paper saying he has a PHD doesn't 100% prove him right, but it DOES make him alot more likely to be right then a person with no experience in electrical engineering.

M: But right about what?

BT: Hopefully that example makes it more clear what I am trying to say. Similar examples can be made for most of the other fallacies and I already tried to do that once in this thread. The "GOOD" part of the "appeal to authority" argument is that authorities ARE more likely to be right than others.

M: No they aren't. They are likely to know their limited subject matter better and that is all. We are not talking about how helium is trapped in the earth but whether we should build nuclear reactors. They can't explain or change piggish behavior that makes always leave others with out mess nor can they change the fact of NIMBYism.

BT: HOWEVER they are not guaranteed to be right and if you have evidence showing they are wrong then you can dispute what they say, but simply proclaiming "appeal to authority" proves nothing on its own.

M: Which is why appeal to authority used against me was wrong and of value to call.

You are simply arguing something so obvious it's unbelievable and completely unrelated to the matter at hand.

Now why did you do this:?
 
BT: Moonbeam, remind us again of your extensive background in this area that allows you to talk down to everyone who opposed your argument.

M: I don't discuss my background because it spoils the mirror effect, a defect that personality causes. You have no idea whether I am an expert or not and thus you are free to project what you want to believe onto me.

BT: Last I checked we have people here opposing you who have engineering degrees and/or work at nuclear power plants or have contacts in the nuclear power industry, whereas last I checked you have no extraordinary knowledge of this subject.

M: Exactly what I mean. You know nothing but pretend that you do. And talk about talking down.

You are an authoritarian butt-head whose inferiority is hidden by the pretension of education and degree. You ran into a little old nobody whose grasp of the problems with nuclear energy left you far behind in the dust. The wonders of the forest for you are about the weight a 2 by 4 can support. The problem you failed to see is that it IS me who IS the expert, not you. And naturally I value my opinion accordingly. 🙂
 
Moonbeam, I really do want to sometime learn exactly what you background is, and no it is not just to try to devise better ways to attack your arguments, I want to understand how it is you have come to your beliefs. Even when I disagree with people here 98% of the time I can at least see where they are coming from, but the nature of your arguments are somewhat of an enigma to me. All this talk of "self hate" and fancy language is very different from the vast majority of posters here. On one side it seems to me that you are just a troll who gets kicks out of making nonsensical arguments and watching as people are completely confused by your fancy language and condescending attitude. On the other hand it always possible that you actually DO believe what you are saying at which point there are two further possibilities, namely that you are just stupid, or that you have a very different background than most everyone here. Now I really am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you are not a troll and that you are an intelligent person, but your refusal to provide and background information on the foundations of your arguments makes it hard to understand where you are coming from. How do you expect us to understand your arguments if we have no understanding what underlying beliefs are influencing them? Clearly our difference of opinions on nuclear power (as well as a whole host of issues) are not simply incidental differences, but are based on vastly different views of looking at the world. Now, we have told you where we are coming from here and if you would do the same it might actually make people on this forum better able to understand and respond to your arguments as opposed to simply considering them silly and dismissing them out of hand.

Are you for example a major in philosophy?, are you one of the people who thinks "the man" is out to get us?, did you read perhaps too much Nietzsche and thinks they are now some man who has transcended those of us with the "herd mentality"?, perhaps you were an engineer at some point and became disillusioned with your employment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top