Philosophy: Logic Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Wow I just noticed the verecundiam in Latin actually means to shame and auctoritate actually means authority. We should include something about this in the article. Doug Walton's book "Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority"^[1] is a citation to start, but I have to come back to it later. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth:I think they are very similar, in this usage it actually refers to the idea that one should be in reverence of or defer to a particular authority. Here is some (likely unintelligible) explanation.

verēcundia

1.knowing one's place: regarded as a virtue; coyness, modesty

2. in shame (of one's self in respect to something/someone else), awe (in respect to the superior)

From vereor ("(to/I) respect, (to/I) revere, (to/I) rightfully fear") and cundia ("begotten from, mother(not really a good translation), source of")

When synthesized (in the context of a type of augment) this becomes something like "with respect to the source of my shame (due to inferiority) and the cause of my righteous fear I believe what X(the source of these things) says and you should too". Which is to say that it is an argument done in deference to an authority.

The use of this argument implies that one can not convince the "opponent" of the merits of one's claims and thus defers to a mutually "respected" source without further evidence (in the strictest sense).

(my post represents an accumulation or synthesis from a large variety of sources and slight modifications in spelling of the words (in english letters) and should not be referenced in the article)

Translation across this vast amount of years and culture is hard, and finding a truly reliable source to do so is difficult. Endercase (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you do not have to go that far. Locke coined the phrase in 1690. It means whatever he meant. What this means for the article is we should not present "argumentum ad verecundiam" as Latin for "argument from authority" as that would be "argumentum ad auctoritate". I found some places that use "argumentum ad auctoritate", but I think we do not need to mention it here as it is uncommon. We should present "argumentum ad verecundiam" as a different name for the argument type. We should also decide if we want content in the body about the Latin phrase, the meaning of "verecundiam" and any change in meaning over time. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth: Ah, well then, this may be an issue of Due weight. We should present both IMO. "argumentum ad verecundiam" is still a more common useage compared to "argumentum ad auctoritate" if the number of google hit is a good metric. Though if you have multiple (2+) reliable sources for "argumentum ad auctoritate" then by all means we should include it. I will do so now. Please add your citations when you have time, in case this is challenged. I do not see a significant different between their usages at this time though. Endercase (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth: Could you provide RS for "argumentum ad auctoritate"? It has been challenged, it will be removed without RS. Endercase (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase:The point I tried to make was "argumentum ad verecundiam" is not Latin for "argument from authority" and shouldn't be presented as such. I do not feel "argumentum ad auctoritate" should be in the article. I guess I will take a stab at re-writing that first sentence and then you tell me what you think. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth: You should cite the translation (latin for "argument to shame"). Translations are an issue in wikipedia I think. They require more RS I think. And maybe 'originally called argumentum ad verecundiam' should read as : 'First recorded usage as argumentum ad verecundiam' or something. Endercase (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth: Maybe you should edit here as we are close to a merge: User:Endercase/Argument from authority introduction. Endercase (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: I used Google translate. There wasn't a citation for the translation before, why should it need one now? However I will have a look and put something in. And what merge? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth: Yeah, Google translate is not RS, we aren't even allowed to link to machine translations of foreign Wikipedia articles as they often miss nuance (and are sometimes compleatly incorrect). The LEDE has been rewritten primarily due to edit warring here, the proposed LEDE is publicly available and hosted at on the other side of this link here. Endercase (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I used a more common translation and added citations. You can incorporate them as you see fit in your new and improved version. I really came here just to point out that it is not a direct translation nor even close. I am not very interested in participating in any arguments or further re-writes. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs some work but it is re-located: Here. It also has an attached working talkpage. Endercase (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we think it is ready (or nearly so). I have asked for comments from a number of users. Please visit the proposal and provide criticism. It currently has 3 editors agreeing on it and none opposing it. There are also a number of pulled quotes from RS on the talk page for easy reference. Endercase (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FL or Atlanta: I saw your edit removing "argumentum ad auctoritatem" as an alternative Latin phrase, and I was about to revert it back. I thought I remembered seeing that alternative name in the WP:RS. However, from a diligent Google search, it seems the most reliable WP:RS call it simply "argumentum ad verecundiam", "argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy" or simply "ad verecundiam" [1]. So, I will leave it unless someone finds better WP:RS to justify it.

I did, however, find one source that did discuss and distinguish argumentum ad verecundiam from argumentum ad auctoritatem [2] which said:

There is a difference between the argumentum ad auctoriatem (appeal to qualified authority) and the argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to unqualified authority). Both forms of argument propose that a certain position must be accepted on the basis that some prominent authority (be it an individual or community) accepts it. There is, however, a clear distinction between the two, since the former is a valid argument and the latter is not. An argumentum ad auctoritatem claims that something is to be accepted because a real auctoritas, or authority in the relevant field, accepts it....

I do not know enough about the qualifications of the author to know if they have sufficient expertise in the subject matter--I don't make the fallacious form of the argument we are discussing by citing improper authority about the topic "appeal to authority". :) --David Tornheim (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I undid it on the grounds that it was not a minor edit and it was marked as so. I will ask the Adding editor for RS. Endercase (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quote above was written by Giovanni Boniolo (see his credentials on page 349). The Google book is Swiss cheese with every other page blocked, so I do not know where he gets his ideas on the subject. I get the impression the study of rhetoric is full of people who present their own ideas as the consensus of the field. I do not think "argumentum ad auctoritatem" should be mentioned anywhere in the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard-of-Earth A number of the editors have PhD's in Philosophy. If there was a problem with that portion of the text, I would assume they would have caught it. I believe in one of the sources discussing Locke, the term "auctoritatem" might have come up. I'm a bit too tired to try and find that right now. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim oh my goodness, did you just make an argument from authority on the argument from authority talk page? Well I do not have a PhD, so I guess I should stick to removing vandalism and neatening formats and stay away from content. But to a degree you are right, anyone can just make up a name for a supposed unique rhetoric element and it may take someone with a PhD to sort out the WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. That said, I looked in google books and I see the phrase "argumentum ad auctoritatem" has been around for quite a while, so I will retract my statement. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This new proposed lede (WP:LEDE) is ready to be incorporated into the article. Three of us (Endercase,MjolnirPants and David Tornheim), have worked diligently on this lede since March 22, 2017 here as proposed by Endercase here who welcomed all editors to participate here on March 22, 2017. Further notice to review the proposed lede was given on April 1, 2017 and again on April 16, 2017.

The three of us are agreement that it is ready to be incorporated (Endercase, David Tornheim MjolnirPants) and intend to replace the current lede with this version of 19:15, 16 April 2017.

If you disagree, or propose changes please let us know. It would probably be better to discuss objections at the project page and make mention on the talk page here if you do. We intend to make the change very soon if no objections are raised. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim and MjolnirPants: The change has been made! Endercase (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with both versions is that they don't talk about the other side enough. There's a deep divide on the issue and no consensus. I included the sources from both versions so now the page reflects that FL or Atlanta (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What rings clarion is the need for congruity on this vexing row. Whilst my own theorem is that each man must arrive at his own denouement that lies atop the apex of the mount of individual discovery that he must clamber atop; sometimes roughly and others smooth, to simply heed every Crier higher on the path calling "Turn away, ere you go down the wrong path" or "come hither, 'tis this way" is an abandonment of one's duty to seek truth undissembled. Yet, by pronouncing such an averment on this resource, would I not be violating my own creed? Shall I become the Crier, now braying "turn from all voices, turn from a chorus of voices; examine the path itself"? No -- I shall catalogue the proclamations of others, and in so doing, annotate the path rather than add another voice to the cacophony. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PraiseTheShroom: I quite enjoy your choice of words. I agree that we must achieve congruity, how do you suggest we do so? I would also like your opinion and criticism on LEDE that I was responsible for ultimately adding here. I agree that each individual must seek and find their own authorities and truths but at the truths of others are worth pondering. We must become each Criers for our own views else our perspectives are in danger and falling out and being lost to the whole. All views have value and should be duly catalogued and discussed IMO, though here we must limit ourselves to "reliably" published citations and avoid "original" research. I will revert to the LEDE that was discussed among a larger group of peers and was approved. Though a rational and supported proposal by any party should be rationally evaluated upon such time as the proposal has been received. I dislike the tendency to change consensus based wording to the wording of a single peer (one voice). Thank you for you input thus far, I look forward to our future discussions. Endercase (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FL or Atlanta: What "other side"? The LEDE that you and PraiseTheShroom have put in place says the same thing in a poor format as the one that was added after weeks of work. The LEDE was open for criticism during that entire time (see above notices). Please refain from changing the LEDE again without bringing up your proposed changes here for consensus. We must work together here or nothing will get done. Endercase (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one's obligated to check random pages. The only ones that matter are the Talk. The fact you worked on something on one of your personal pages doesn't somehow make it official. What ultimately matters are the sources, and it looks like the ones you gave are mostly all in PraiseTheShroom's version. The "consensus" here is that version: one that discusses each side as per the sources, which is what we've got. This is WP:POLE in action: some people are big fans of appeals to authority, some people aren't. By all of us pushing, we've gotten a very balanced article. (Which honestly I'd say gives way too much credence to this fallacy). Reverting good moves towards a consensus version in favor of your pet version is disruptive editing. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't cite the sources in the way you did again. Many of them were out of context and one was a youtube video. Please refer to the guidelines for the proper addition of sources. Endercase (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources seemed good to me - what was "out of context"? And what's wrong with a video from a published historian and archeologist? Do the words change if he writes them on an article on a website instead of speaking them? If videos weren't acceptable sources, why would Wikipedia even have a citation category for citing A/V media? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfect Orange Sphere: Please strike your claim that Endercase is being disruptive by pushing his "pet version". This is a version that three of us collaborated on for a month, that we invited you to discuss, that we notified you of several times, and you did not show up or raise any objections, until we added it to the article, after having gained consensus. If anyone is being disruptive it is you. There is no consensus for the version that is there now. As for the sources, MjolnirPants has it right. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the work had what you would see as a good result - now the page fairly reflects your side with your sources. Nothing on Wikipedia is ever permanent, but everything has a lasting influence on the page as it develops. Personally I think the way it was before all this was better, but if you can't stand that version then at least we can both bear for this one to exist - even if it does entertain the notion that a blatant fallacy for the intellectually listless is a valid argument. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfect Orange Sphere: There are no "sides" among editors, be careful with such claims. I have seen editors get banned for far less. We (editors) are here to document the historical, provable facts. The current LEDE makes no controversial claims that are disputed by reliable sources. Even your own sources do not make the claims you appear to claim they do (that the appeal to authority is always wrong). Instead your sources appear to advise one to exercise caution when differentiating between an appeal to a false authority and a "true" one. I personally agree with your premise that there is no such thing as "true" authority; which means to me that all sources must be questioned and that all knowledge that isn't personally and repeatedly verifiable is less inherently reliable that knowledge that is. I do not understand the issue you have with the current LEDE as I feel it does reflect the concept that not all "authorities" are intellectually honest. I am fairly certain that the person in the YouTube video you cited would agree with the current LEDE (with possibly minor revisions), though if you can get them to come here we can know for sure. Endercase (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely are sides with editors Endercase - especially on controversial topics like this one. You think that appeal to authority are powerful evidence for something's truth. I think they have nearly 0 evidential value. That puts us automatically on hugely different sides on this page. You would like a version that says they're strong arguments, I would like one that says they're weak arguments. What should happen is that this gets us a WP:POLE effect and we push the article to a balanced middle. But that doesn't work when instead of editing, you just go right to that revert button and insist on your preferred version and your preferred view and nothing else.

No controversial claims? Your claim that authorities agreeing on something makes it "highly likely" is not only extremely controversial but entirely false. Did it make the four humors highly likely? Did it make us having 48 chromosomes highly likely? Did it make geocentrism highly likely? Did it make spontaneous generation highly likely? Lots of sources, thankfully, see past this ridiculous notion that people believing something makes it likely to be true. Honestly I think the root of this for a lot of people is laziness: "yeah but if I can't just believe what they tell me then I'd actually have to examine an issue for myself - who wants to do that? That involves effort :(((". Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: Endercase, for the record, the man in that youtube video is neither a "published historian" nor a archeologist. He is a martial arts instructor and "TV/Film/museum consultant". He does not so much as possess a graduate degree in history, let along any body of historical literature. That being said, I am also quite sure he would agree with the drafted lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that such qualifications are important, but the fact remains that at least 2 editors consider him a reliable source. The major issue with their argument in my mind is that not even in the cited video does he argue that you can't trust anyone ever (it would undermine his own argument). They appear to claim that the appeal to authority is always wrong partially because, I think they think we think, it is an absolute statement (meaning if a recognized authority (such as the man in the YouTube video) says something then that thing is always right). I think the current LEDE reflects that even a recognized authority can be wrong and that all absolute appeals to authority are fallacious, as they claim. "A is very likely true" As such I do not understand the issue they are taking with the LEDE. I was careful to make sure their cited (if odd) view was accounted for and represented.

I do not understand the hostility Perfect Orange Sphere(POS) appears to think I intend to their beliefs. POS IMO needs to be more clear when describing the issue(s) they have with the current LEDE preferably with a line by line analyses. POS also need to familiarize themselves with policy a bit better. Their slight wp:canvassing (notice on a talk page) was risky. Their arguments are close to wp:meatpuppet IMO (as they appear to me to be fundamentally identical); as are ours to them I imagine. IMO POS need to make an effort to convey their opinion to us in a more empathetic manner as we appear to not understand the point or even underlying values of their argument.

@Perfect Orange Sphere: I do not intend any hostility, please explain the issues you have with the current LEDE like I am a stubborn child who knows little to nothing: use direct quotes and citations to source your argument so that I can understand where you are coming from and from what body of knowledge that you draw from. This is my humble request. I do seriously, wish to understand your argument. I think you are a good faith contributor and you may have a valid point, I may be just failing to understand it. Endercase (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it says that authorities believing something means that it is highly likely that a thing is true. That is not only false (which alone isn't sufficient reason to remove it of course - WP:TRUTH and all) but we have plenty of sources that present a different view: that appeals to authority like that are fallacies that don't actually provide evidence for a claim any more than an ad hominem or an argument that begs the question would. That fact that a person or people believe something is not itself evidence that that belief is true - the data that lead them to that belief (assuming there was any) is the only thing that could provide evidence for it.

Does that kinda clear up what my view is, and where I'm coming from? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfect Orange Sphere: I responded to this on your talk page by attempting to open a discussion. Per your beliefs the citation of sources is pointless, I am willing to talk about it ourselves though and attempt to prove the claims of "my" sources via logic and discourse. Endercase (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The assertion that there is a debate in philosophy over whether this subject is always a fallacy or not is both false, and OR. As implemented in the version Endercase reverted, it was evinced entirely by synthesizing material from references which are either inappropriate or which did not support the claim they were cited in. There are no sources at all stating that there is any serious debate over whether it is always fallacious to appeal to authority. The closest thing to it are sources which debate whether or not the fallacious use (appealing to a non-authority being represented as an authority) is fundamentally different from the legitimate use (appealing to an actual authority). Even that debate is rather low key, because the "there is no distinction" side tends to correctly point out that there are circumstances under which appealing to a legitimate authority can be fallacious (such as quote mining, or presenting a depiction of a minority view as the consensus).

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just for good measure, I feel obliged to say I'm in favor of the new lede, which is much clearer. Kleuske (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity in this case would be a mark against it as the issue itself is not clear from all the sources. Are appeals to authority solid arguments with force that you should believe automatically, or should you mistrust them and they ought to be avoided? Good sources say both so the page must as well. FL or Atlanta (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FL or Atlanta: The current LEDE does say both...It is even divided into the true and fallacious types of arguments. One of the many issues I think is that the definition of "true expert" is an expert that is correct; so one of the arguments you claim we are leaving out does use circular logic to self justify and that is intellectually dishonest IMO. We avoid the use of that term in the current LEDE and thus represented the argument in a more intellectually honest manner. By showing that all experts can be incorrect and not making the claim (or even implying) that a consistently "true" or infallible expert exists we explain the argument in way that is more accessible to the reader, while maintaining reliably sourced material. If you would like I can post the entire discussion from my userpage talk page to here so you may review how we arrived at this LEDE. However, the discussion (that I fear you haven't read) is publicly available and locally hosted at the previously linked page. Endercase (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase, do you find the sources unclear? I know David Tornheim doesn't seem to. Kleuske doesn't seem to find the sources unclear. Original Position, who has refused to participate here as long as FL or Atlanta is involved (and who has claimed and demonstrated a substantive formal education in philosophy) didn't seem to find the sources unclear. Lord Mondegreen never indicated they found the sources unclear, either. I surely don't find them unclear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: I do not find the sources unclear personally. I in fact think they all agree, even the ones cited by the our (3?-maybe we should do a checkuser?-wp:duck) objectors. But, I can understand their stance (if not their changes to the LEDE). One of the issues is that using a claim of authority to defend claims of authority is a bit circular, so I don't mind debating the users so that we have an acceptable (by them) proof for our LEDE. Endercase (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've found that only these two seem to think the sources are unclear. The list of editors who held the same view as them of this argument, until reading the sources and finding them to be quite clear (and convincing, considering their expertise) is rather exhaustive. I was the same, though to be fair I read the sources back in high school. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase getting triggered

@PraiseTheShroom: I did not claim that the LEDE is currently unopposed, I claimed that the LEDE was added unopposed. To quote a movie/book I hold in high regard "There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now."-HGttG Whereas, Alpha Centauri is the talk page and 50 years is well over a month. I humbly request you that re-revert your reverted revert. Endercase (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I lack the capacity to oppose an endeavor that I have received no news of. I did not know of any changes and frankly had rather forgotten about the page until our colleague FL or Atlanta notified me of it not three days past. Had I been told I would have sounded the trump of my objections before this primer had been birthed. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PraiseTheShroom: Per some interpretations of wp:canvass technically, you shouldn't be here now. It is a policy I do disagree with somewhat though as I have mentioned in the policy discussion regarding it here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:CANVASS (citation)

Yet here I am: what has gone before cannot be dislodged and heaved forward that we might change it when it comes 'round again. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is the proper location for notification according to policy (Alpha Centauri in the above example). Endercase (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @PraiseTheShroom: Endercase is correct. Your showing up appears to be WP:CANVASSed. You can't claim that you were not notified. If you have this article on your watchlist, you have been notified numerous times: March 22, 2017 March 22, 2017, April 1, 2017, April 16, 2017 and April 17, 2017. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tornheim, I shall be forthright: I do not know how to utilize the watchlist. I wish to shine a beam on what I believe to be a misunderstanding: I am not of the opinion that a notification should have been provided. Let every man edit with or without whoever he pleases in whatever manner he pleases; provided all acknowledge that these chaotic tides will have their way with whatever you cast into them. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PraiseTheShroom: Not to mention the LEDE you changed it to isn't even the original LEDE. This one is far worse. I am starting to suspect that all of you are at the very least meat-puppets if not sockpuppets. Your behavior fits the bill as outlined by the policy. Endercase (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfect Orange Sphere: To top it off this account keeps changing Notable Example to Notable Examples. There is only one example, using the plural is just incorrect. I am trying very hard to AGF but this simply looks like trolling. Maybe even trolling for the Lulz, seriously if you want to do that there are far better places for it. Heck, I'll even do it with you if you want, but on Twitter, not here. Endercase (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase, plenty of pages have an "Examples" section with only one example - the implication is that more should be added. To clarify that, I've changed it to "Examples.

See? That's what it looks like to actually build a page rather than insist on your own version. Try more of that and less just daily reverting to your own version. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this in the edit history. Endercase (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PraiseTheShoom

Reliably published citations (indeed, were you to ask for my sentiment, from the most reliable time when the true spirit of Science and Progress lighted the hearts of man at an apex never since quite matched) are clear on the subject. I refer you in the first to that penned by myself from the Medical Press and Circular. Permit me to furnish several more for the benefit of our inquiry:

Mr. Davenport's statement, ‘I cannot believe it possible for him to have been mistaken in any specimens coming under his observation,’ reminds one more of sentimental hero worship than of a sincere attempt to know the truth. The citation of ‘authority’ and ‘the opinion of the fathers’ is as obsolete in botany as it is elsewhere…

From http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2464353.pdf

There is no positive value in an argument of appeal to authority

From https://books.google.com/books?id=xVPLHOr1wJYC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115

The argumentum ad verecundiam is one of a dangerous character, since the history of science has taught us that men of the most comprehensive and erudite minds have at various times maintained the most crude and inconsistent dogmas.

From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2558028/pdf/provmedsurgj00318-0006.pdf

Any book which aims at scientific method should contain within itself all that is necessary to the immediate issues, and should avoid the appearance of anything like an appeal to authority…

From https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5jA1AQAAMAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1

On such a subject no appeal to authority will avail to silence doubt. The minority may, after all, be right. What men call heresy proves sometimes to be the truth of God.

From https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xHYXAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1

The Argumentum ad Verecundiam is an appeal to the opinion of an authority which the person against whom the argument is used is bound to respect and follow…This argument can also hardly be said to prove any thing…It is used and very well serves to embarrass an antagonist. Beyond this it has but little force…”

From https://books.google.com/books?id=80j9nKZ8atMC&pg=PA336&lpg=PA336

A great number could be added to this host alongside these. Many are they that hold that the mere fact a man has conjectured an opinion or many men give it sway is not a sign of its truth, no matter how a reader may envision their docket. Should not this particular folio of the website give air to their words? Just because a man plugs his ears before a choir does not imply that there is silence.PraiseTheShroom (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PraiseTheShroom: If you would like we may discuss our personal philosophies regarding the above via email.

On to your sources: 1)The LEDE you removed never claimed otherwise, it says specifically that "authorities" can be wrong. But, that they are likely correct (your source does not disagree with this). 2) First of all this is a botanist, but barring ad hominem attacks: the claim of no value in authority in and of itself devalues this citation (why does their authority matter? After all they themselves says it doesn't). Also if you don't believe in Arguments from Authority (AfA), why does editing Wikipedia even matter? Wouldn't editing a blog or even Twitter have the same effect? Also, "no positive value", what is that even intended to mean? Do any arguments have inherent value at all? 3)This does not disagree with the LEDE you removed, in fact it it could be used as citation in it. 4)This article has nothing to do with the scientific or socratic methods. 5)Never did the LEDE you remove claim otherwise, it simply stated that a docter is more likely to know what is wrong with you than a chef. 6)Wow you found a clergyman who dislikes AfA, odd without AfA no religion could exist beyond a few dozen followers who personally witnessed the miracles (power). Anyway, his claim that AfA can only be used to shame is patently ridiculous. For example you citing various "authorities" above does not shame me in the slightest and is only intended (per AGF) to convince another party (myself) of an apparently logical conclusion. Endercase (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fallacy does not make a thing one with the truth; the ad verecundiam is a fallacy of logic. The results of an inquiry elucidate the facts of a thing; the hands that performed it being merely trivia.

And aye, I cite botanists: my own field is kin to their's. (And some low fellows in fact have the nerve to deem it a submember!). We witness a gulf between philosophers and those natural philosophers we have christened scientists on this matter: a standard philosopher, their ideas being on the main beyond verification, many seek to rest in the comforting bosom of authority. Yet a natural philosopher's ideas are exposed to ruin at every turn: they must stand on their own or they shall be pulled down (or such would be the case in a handsomer world: all too often; yet not as often as the philosophers, do scientists seek to shield themselves from the baking sun of scrutiny by the shadow of a larger figure). I believe that to be one of the sources of the rift that divides the philosophers and natural philosophers in twain on this strong proof or this dismal fallacy.

The doctor vs. the chef is rhetorical sleight of hand; is the doctor an avatar of a different body of knowledge than the chef, taken form among us? A man of medicine's conclusions can only be trusted as far as the information on which they are based. It is a gullible man that does not ask his doctor "how is this known?". Any true craftsman will readily explain the grounds their base their conclusions on: a doctor should tell you "This study on the condition found this substance effective; on that I stake my wager that it shall prove so you with". One that replies with a hanging jaw and simply asks you to trust him is more likely than not taking your insurance's purse for a ride. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rhetorical sleight of hand, simply probability. A docter is far more likely to know what is wrong with your body than a chef. Due to you beliefs about appeals to authority I'll leave it up to you to test this hypothesis. I agree that often a true expert will explain where their truth comes from and where it is based as well as how accurate it likely is. However, the understanding of some concepts is simply beyond the timely ability of some individuals as such we often refer the body of knowledge possessed by those who are more learned than us in specific areas. The LEDE I added claimed no more or less than this. Never did it say that authorities are always right nor did it encourage anyone to be a lemming. Nor did it say that authority's should be trusted when they fail to provide evidence, it simply said that a recognized authority is more likely to be correct than a layperson. I don't think that you even disagree with this point, I'm honestly not sure what in the LEDE (that I added) that you disagree with (if anything). Additionally, how should one detertermain the most likely truth behind events of the past? Without accounts (appeals to authority) or historians (appeals to authority) the past (outside of our own experience) is compleatly unknown. Endercase (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be frank and forthright: when you say that one citing witness accounts is appealing to authority, I believe you show that you do not fully grasp the subject of this article. Citing the witness of a man is not an ad verecundiam. Should one of sound mind sincerely believe to have observed something, and can be shown to be likely to be honest, then we are informed that events transpired such that they genuinely left him with such and such impression: that provides us with evidence about conditions at the time of the event. (And is the sense of the reasoning that impartial witnesses or many witnesses are superior to those with bias or that stand alone: those who are evenhanded are much the more sure to prove honest, and a group of many is unlikely to share any unsoundness of mind or to be afflicted by the occasional unsoundnesses that one alone might experience). An ad verecundiam would be to counterdict the testimony of witnesses by bringing forth a so-called authority (and the measure of this is cultural respect rather than any objective assessment: it could be a man in a white coat in our culture or a witch doctor in the Dark Continent). Say that many bore witness to the fact that John F. Kennedy had expressed a certain sentiment before his death. To cite their testimony would not be an argument from authority. To then cite a professed expert on President Kennedy's life and say "this brilliant man counterdicts them; there can be no truth in what they say" would be the image of an appeal to authority. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PraiseTheShroom:I very firmly disagree with this. The claim of witnessing an event in and of itself requires evidence. In the absence of the evidence the claim of witnessing is solely based on the apparent reliability (trustworthiness) of their claim of authority on the subject (the claiming that they in fact witnessed the historic event is a claim of authority). Whereas there is no such thing as uncontroversial evidence (IMO) all bits of evidence require a judgement based interpretation. All bits of information must be interpreted by an authority (that authority may be yourself) otherwise it is meaningless data with no direction or context. Without a qualitative measure provided by an experienced individual (an authority) there can be no context for interpreting the data in question. It is worth noting that experience is relative and so is the term authority and what one person considers an experienced individual (an authority) another will not. Endercase (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PraiseTheShroom: Do you grasp the difference between the practical application of philosophy in science and the actual philosophy itself? Finding a list of scientists who say "appealing to authorities is a bad idea" is trivial because in science, appealing to authorities is a bad idea. But science is not everything. It's certainly not the only thing philosophy cares about. It's not the only thing people argue about.

For example, when one is arguing with a spouse, one's emotional state is very relevant. Your emotional reaction to the way your spouse says or does something is a perfectly valid point to raise. If you have a negative emotional reaction to something your spouse does, it's very valid to use that argument to advance the position that they should not do that anymore. However, if you're arguing about tax policy, your emotional reaction is a grossly inappropriate argument. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Just because appealing to an authority is an extraordinarily bad idea in science doesn't mean that every single philosopher who's outlined the argument and concluded that it's valid as often as invalid is wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, MjolnirPants, I do: a scientist is a natural philosopher responsible for finding useful knowledge, a mundane philosopher is responsible for using as many words as possible while saying as little as he can. If science is what brings useful knowledge while philosophy is what gets a man nowhere (for when has an "advance" in philosophy ever come? It has not, and cannot: such a thing would be as if an "advance" in fiction, for philosophy is about fictions and little else), then if useful knowledge is what a man seeks then he should take the standards of science and avoid the pitfall of this fallacy. But if a man seeks to go nowhere then by all means let him follow the philosophers into their hole. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PraiseTheShroom: I really suggest you read metametaphysics, it may help you change your perspective on this slightly. Endercase (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a mundane philosopher is responsible for using as many words as possible while saying as little as he can. I thought that joke was funny the first hundred times I heard it, but it's completely useless in any serious discussion.

for when has an "advance" in philosophy ever come? It has not, and cannot: Analytic philosophy. It can, and has.

None of your comment actually addresses my point, let alone refutes it. All I can see is that you hold philosophers in contempt, which leads me to wonder why you would even bother editing a page about an argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some have laboured on a form of this vista which was here in bygone days not so far past. Yet such found a spouse, grew old, and has passed and is dead. Now its child is the heir, and it we must advance. To exhume a corpse time and time again yields naught. What say you, MjolnirPants? Shall we proceed, or must you and others ever insist upon regression? PraiseTheShroom (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]