Not a prestigious person, but having attended a prestigious institution.
Having gone to Harvard Med School, is not always based on the need to become a prestigious person, as a primary factor in defining that term.
Does that mean that someone who went to Harvard Med school is a better than a doctor that didn’t go to Harvard Med School, 100% of the time? 70% of the time? 50% of the time? 0% of the time? Or you don’t know?
Doctor A has reasons A, B and C for his diagnosis and recommended treatment.
You are not a doctor so you don’t fully understand those reasons. He could be right or wrong or he could be bullshitting. You don’t know.
Doctor X has reasons X, Y and Z for his diagnosis and recommended treatment.
You are not a doctor so you don’t fully understand those reasons. He could be right or wrong or he could be bullshitting. You don’t know.
So, you are going to make a reasonable decision based on their reasons but you don’t fully understand those reasons. Right?
Do you get where the ignorance comes into it?
Do you get why people say “I don’t really know or understand who is right but this doctor comes from a better university so I will accept his judgement” ?
I look into those reasons as much as I can. Of course, ignorance is everywhere.
I get why people say “I don’t really know or understand who is right but this doctor comes from a better university so I will accept his judgement” - but I don’t agree with their reasoning. I would never say that. That’s not sufficient for me. It’s not noble. If they can’t learn to understand the reasons, then perhaps they should just adopt a slavish life and obey their masters. Because apparently they aren’t capable. Then, with that, the authorities gain power. With power, comes corruption.
In the world of means it does, usually. Just like peer review in the New England a Journal of Medicine is usually considered definitive.
But I get Your point.
You just won’t admit that you make decisions in pretty much the same way that the people who you look down on make decisions. Maybe you have a bit more intelligence and understanding but that’s it.
Everyone does the same thing except in fields of their own expertise. :-"
Sure, but keep in mind that science is a constant study of, well, reality. It doesn’t prove things. If you want it to think that it proves something, that’s fine, but that doesn’t coincide with what I would say is a more intelligent understanding of things in general. Science is a study of reality and it is a constant study. It is duly noted, on my end, that definitive doesn’t mean proven. I just wanted to elaborate a bit more.
Here is a good link on what science does, except for their last paragraph on “just a theory”. There’s a difference between “Just a theory” and a scientific theory, also I think it takes itself a little too far, considering it doesn’t really touch on scientific facts, which it should. Scientific facts become knowledge for good reason. “Just a theory” is, not an apt way to describe scientific theories.
Why would I admit to thinking like everybody else in this matter when I don’t? Seems, ridiculous. Of course I don’t think like everyone else. Do I think like others? I would hope so. I certainly would say that most people don’t think like me, but I would say that the should. I know that I am more intelligent than most people, to be candid. You can’t really be intelligent and not realize that. It becomes obvious, apparent, in many ways, through many experiences. If you can’t process all those experiences and make a judgment of being more intelligent than other people properly, well, how are you intelligent? Of course, that’s easy to say, a lot of people will say they are very intelligent and maybe they are not. So you can take that for what it is.
“Everyone does the same thing except in fields of their own experitise”. Really now? Everyone? You know this, do you? :-" 
No, clearly I’m not saying either of those things. You’re just talking out your ass because you don’t know what cogency is, or what inductive arguments are.
Great, more standard english definitions of philosophical vernacular. No, that’s not what cogency is. Seriously, I linked you to a fucking paper I wrote explaining all of this to you. I linked it because you asked me to, even. Was it over your head?
Then gain more understanding. Logical soundness is the aim of deductive arguments, cogency is the aim of inductive arguments. Deductive arguments aim to guarentee the truth of the conclusion given the truth of the premises, inductive arguments aim to show the truth of the conclusion to be more likely than not, given the truth of the premises. Here are some Philosophy 101 abstracts for you.
stenmorten.com/English/logic/logic.htm
uky.edu/~rosdatte/phi120/lesson4a.htm
What I mean is deductive arguments from authority like the example you gave. Are you unaware of what you were given an example of?
No. Not even close actually. In fact, this ‘more intelligent not to appeal to authority at all’ as if logic works on a sliding scale makes me doubt that you know how deduction works.
Honestly now- do you know what deduction, induction, soundess, and cogency are, and how ‘being a fallacy’ relates to them? This is the very essence of the thing you want to be discussing, after all.
Or perhaps you don’t know dick about argument structure, deduction, induction, cogency and etc., and are just speaking in an authoriatitive tone about things you know nothing about.
Yeah. That must be it.
You explicitly said that a person can amelioriate some of the bad effects of an appeal to authority by getting a second opinion. So appealing to two authorities is better than appealing to one. If you have a basic understanding of what a logical fallacy is, then you would know why seeking a second opinion has absolutely no baring on a fallacy of authority.
That’s what happens when you make shit up as you go along, including your definitions of basic philosophical terms. You’re the one who is raising this subject of appeals to authority and how terrible they are. It is certainly not my problem that you did this barely even knowing what an appeal to authority is and why they’re bad, or having any understanding of Critical Thinking 101 type stuff before you chose to raise the topic.
Haha. Uh-huh. It’s weird how much of your discussion on here revolves around you trying to establish yourself as some sort of superior intellect, given that you’ve apparently put basically no time into actually studying the fields that you choose to pontificate on. Isn’t there something out there that you actually know something about that you could be speaking with this kind of arrogant hubris concerning? Why choose a field that you, let’s admit it, haven’t really studied that much to be the one where you tell everybody they’re wrong on a forum specifically devoted to it? Does that sound like the actions of a rational person to you?
If empiricism validates logic, does anything validate empiricism? Or does it need no validation for some reason?
Yeah, I think this is what it comes down to. Based on the terms he clearly has no meaning of, his definition of logic seems to be “Intellectual activity that I respect”. Much like his definition of ‘belief’ seems to be “Noetic positions I do not respect”.
Don’t you get it? He knows how accurate his memory is, because he remembers all the times his memory failed him in the past!
You should probably follow this process when it comes to philosophy, as well.
He is following it.
But there is still a problem.
I don’t see any evidence of it. He’s telling us all how it is, how reason and logic work, and if you probe his understanding of these terms it’s patently obvious he has consulted no experts and done no research. He’s just insisting that what seems reasonable to him at first blush must be how it is. Anyway, the problem with all this is that ANGRY’s heroic claims about what he’d do are abstracted from any sort of life. If two people get diagnosed with the same condition by the same doctor, and person A spends a year studying his condition and fact checking the doctor and B doesn’t, it’s easy to say that A is the more reasonable person. The problem is that B probably didn’t spend that year smoking pot and hitting himself in the head with a hammer; maybe he was doing something else productive. Maybe he learned to play the piano or studied epiphenominalism while the other guy was fact-checking the doctor he paid good money to for the diagnosis. Then who’s the reasonable one?
There’s only 24 hours in a day- the person that’s spending all his time verifying what his doctor tells him is no doubt relying on arguments from authority with regards to other aspects of his life anyway. Besides, empirical reasearch is never going to turn that cogent argument from authority into a deduction, all you’ll wind up with at the end of all the research is a somewhat more cogent, still logically unsound conclusion; the fallacy of induction trumps all.
He read some stuff on the internet. The evidence is that he linked it. Maybe he read more.
From that research, he got a limited understanding and based on that understanding he has determined that some doctors of philosophy are wrong about their analysis. He has determined that his own understanding is better and that the doctors need to adopt his understanding.
All perfectly logical and consistent based on what he has written and what he believes about himself and others.
Sure. The concept of ‘reasonable’ can be applied in many ways to this situation.
-reasonable diagnosis
-reasonable treatment program
-reasonable way to spend your time
-reasonable confidence in your own abilities
-reasonable personal financial investment into medical diagnosis
-reasonable use of medical facilities
etc
Hilarious. Go on.
I didn’t read your link I previously asked you about, but thank you because I happen to use the word the same way that the dictionary described it, myself. Apparently you’re referring to a strict reference to argument terminology. However, that doesn’t mean what I stated was wrong - you should have understood we’re speaking a different vernacular here instead of attempting to be an ass about it. So in any case, now I understand what you mean.
I agree that deductive arguments need to be logically sound. But I’m sorry i don’t know how cogency is the aim of inductive arguments as opposed to deductive. I would say cogency (not the technical term you used) should be the aim of most philosophy and arguments. If its not cogent, it can be twisted, turned, into something it is not. Cogency is my ultimately goal here, but that’s often a two way street. In order for something to be cogent, one must be able to understand it, that means if someone is providing a cogent argument, how could it be seen as cogent without someone to interpret the argument? Unless you are talking to yourself, I suppose then you can judge your own arguments inside your head cogent if you wish. Or not use the meaning of the word I provided already, at all and say its wrong.
I don’t think you understand what I’m meaning. I am not concerned about the “cogency” as you use the term in an inductive argument. I didn’t provide an inductive argument. I don’t care about probability, I’m referring to something that should be a guiding rule of thumb for the sake of their own well being. So I don’t know why you are discussing this then? Obviously logic doesn’t work on a sliding scale obviously… but people do. It’s just that people don’t parse their thoughts well enough to know the driving force behind their own choices sometimes. If that driving force is illogical - well, there’s a problem. Keep in mind the sentiment of the argument, think for yourself, question authority. You want to “appeal to authority” (different vernacular), in some way that seems to be different than the fallacy I was referring to because of probability. Not noble~
I didn’t say a person can ameliorrate some bad effects of an appeal to authority. Nor did what I say imply that.
Sorry, no I didn’t. I never claimed a doctor to be right because they are an authority is acceptable, I’ve been saying anything but here. I think you might be reading some other person’s comments and conflating it with mine.
I’m sorry, did that hypothetical pertain to you? Do you intuitively think since you see a tree, therefore it is there? Otherwise there’s no reason for you to say anything because you should agree. Sorry, do you think perception is flawless? Are you the authority here? Is this personal for you? Do you want to appeal to authority because you have a degree in Philosophy, Uccisore? Do you have a degree in philosophy? If so, do you think academic philosophy is the authority?
Logic, reason, validate it. Experience and testing validate it. It’s all we have, our senses, without it we know nothing. May as well not exist without our senses.
Perhaps one would you think “shaped” might be the key word here and not logic? After all, it is little ambiguous don’t you think? No, couldn’t be that… you don’t notice that, you want to assume the worst
I didn’t say I know how accurate my memory is. I wouldn’t say I remember all the time my memory failed me in the past too. I note it though. Do you not? Perhaps not. No time to concern yourself with your flaws maybe?
What is that phyllo?
Oh, I think through trifling, we have gathered sufficient evidence of your definition shortcomings.
My issue is that it seems that you are trying to say many things to which I would agree and like to see you say, but you use the wrong words and in the wrong manner. Get your definitions actually straight, and I suspect that I would be agreeing with you much more on the concepts you seem to be wanting to promote.
And yet they do not know that they don’t have such capacity so they go around telling others how to think, to stop merely following, and think for themselves. 
Everyone tends to justify their own actions and opinions by their own standard of intellect. So when will they ever learn that they never had the capacity in the first place?
Let me introduce a new thought: Most people don’t know how to get other people to think. Which is more important? Why are you not doing one of them?
That’s quite the inference. Now I understand that my understanding is better than PHd’s in philosophy? Amazing, I didn’t know I thought that.
Do you read Hume, or Wittgenstein, and agree with everything they say? Do you never disagree with what they say? How about Neitzsche? Do you think a disagreement that you may have with some things means you understand better than people with PHd’s in philosophy?