Why do so many people deny climate change

[PMZ]

It obviously is an appeal to author. PMS is implying the AGW wizards are right because they have PHDs.

Which PoV of Spiderman's is that?

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
[1][2][3]

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.
*********************************
Since my argument is inductive, the people to whom I refer ARE experts in their field and there IS a consensus among them as to these points, my argument is sound.

Spiderman simply claims that a 2C temperature rise will do no significant harm. As far as I can tell, he has come to that conclusion based on his own, unrevealed reasoning. My question was whether you found that more acceptable or less acceptable than my "argument from authority".

The appeal to authority is always wrong. Authorities can be wrong, so any claim that a proposition must be true because some authority says it's true is automatically false.

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article states, "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true."

On the contrary, that is the fallacy in a nutshell. It is fallacious to believe the assertion must be true when your only evidence is that a certain authority made it. Without corroboration through empirical evidence, you can only conditionally accept the assertion.

The quality of the authority may make it more likely that the assertion is true, but, without actual evidence (and a competent authority will provide access to the evidence), it is not logical to argue that it is true, only that it is likely to be true. Further, it is not possible to disprove a statement that the assertion is false (note: without evidence it is not possible to prove that the assertion is false, but that is not the same thing as stating that the assertion is false and having the statement disproved).

The statement quoted is therefore simply incorrect and should be omitted from the article.
198.207.0.5 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For those interested in actual objective truth, there is no way to justify argument from authority in any way, shape or form. If you know that an expert agrees, you must know why he agrees. If you know why, present the argument directly, else it is assumed you are hiding ignorance and an ulterior motive. If you do not know why the expert agrees, then perhaps you are mistaken that he actually would agree in the specific situation being addressed, or perhaps the expert would be swayed by the counter arguments. Furthermore perhaps you are mistaken that the person is in fact an expert on the matter.

The expertise of the arguers and the "authority" would be determined by the outcome of the argument. At best authoritative status means the person is likely to have something influential to say on the subject. Trying to preclude someone from making an argument based on the belief that an authoritative source will disagree and win the argument is driven by the emotional need not to be deceived that the "authority" really was just that. This behavior is destructive to the spread of ideas and truth and should be recognized for the fallacy that it is no matter how it is used.

If the best you can do is to argue that someone else agrees with your belief, you shouldn't be arguing at all. -TZK —Preceding

BriPat believes that, as the best informed person on earth, he is the authorative standard on all topics. Nothing left to learn.

I think that most of us know how to treat the few people that we meet who hold to that kind of belief.

 

[PMZ]

Climate change predictions are gay.......proven many, many times over. Because they are based upon bogus computer models which are gay.

You claiming that something is true has no effect at all on what is true.

The same goes for the so-called "climate scientists," dipstick.

Actually, not. They are educated and informed and have chosen to devote their lives and talent to that specialty.

Just like you've chosen to devote your life to watching Fox News.

That makes them authorities on climate science and you an authority on Republican propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
[1][2][3]

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.
*********************************
Since my argument is inductive, the people to whom I refer ARE experts in their field and there IS a consensus among them as to these points, my argument is sound.

Spiderman simply claims that a 2C temperature rise will do no significant harm. As far as I can tell, he has come to that conclusion based on his own, unrevealed reasoning. My question was whether you found that more acceptable or less acceptable than my "argument from authority".

The appeal to authority is always wrong. Authorities can be wrong, so any claim that a proposition must be true because some authority says it's true is automatically false.

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For those interested in actual objective truth, there is no way to justify argument from authority in any way, shape or form. If you know that an expert agrees, you must know why he agrees. If you know why, present the argument directly, else it is assumed you are hiding ignorance and an ulterior motive. If you do not know why the expert agrees, then perhaps you are mistaken that he actually would agree in the specific situation being addressed, or perhaps the expert would be swayed by the counter arguments. Furthermore perhaps you are mistaken that the person is in fact an expert on the matter.

The expertise of the arguers and the "authority" would be determined by the outcome of the argument. At best authoritative status means the person is likely to have something influential to say on the subject. Trying to preclude someone from making an argument based on the belief that an authoritative source will disagree and win the argument is driven by the emotional need not to be deceived that the "authority" really was just that. This behavior is destructive to the spread of ideas and truth and should be recognized for the fallacy that it is no matter how it is used.

If the best you can do is to argue that someone else agrees with your belief, you shouldn't be arguing at all. -TZK —Preceding

BriPat believes that, as the best informed person on earth, he is the authorative standard on all topics. Nothing left to learn.

I think that most of us know how to treat the few people that we meet who hold to that kind of belief.

You still haven't proved that the appeal to authority is a valid argument. You're simply an idiot spewing ad hominems. All your arguments are logical fallacies.

 

[PMZ]

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that 2 degrees will kill anyone. In fact, it may prevent a lot of people from starving to death.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that you actually read what I posted. Otherwise, I doubt that you would have stuck with your "2 degrees won't kill" mantra. Oh, and your claim that it "may prevent a lot of people from starving to death" is not supported by the evidence.

I obviously did read it. I simply noted that it was wrong.

Recorded history supports the contention that a warmer climate would be more conducive to support human life. The warmer periods of Earth's history were times of abundance when civilization flourished. Famine and drought were the main themes during the colder periods.

If humankind hadn't adapted to the climate that we are choosing to leave behind, probably everything would be OK. While you were watching Fox News though we built coastal cities and farms and factories and homes based on the old climate.

Of course we won't know what the new climate and weather will be like until we stop changing it and the earth's systems restabilize.

It's only money and lives at risk.

 

[bripat9643]

You claiming that something is true has no effect at all on what is true.

The same goes for the so-called "climate scientists," dipstick.

Actually, not. They are educated and informed and have chosen to devote their lives and talent to that specialty.

Just like you've chosen to devote your life to watching Fox News.

That makes them authorities on climate science and you an authority on Republican propaganda.

Climate doesn't give a hoot what the "authorities" have to say. That's what you fail to understand.

 

[bripat9643]

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that you actually read what I posted. Otherwise, I doubt that you would have stuck with your "2 degrees won't kill" mantra. Oh, and your claim that it "may prevent a lot of people from starving to death" is not supported by the evidence.

I obviously did read it. I simply noted that it was wrong.

Recorded history supports the contention that a warmer climate would be more conducive to support human life. The warmer periods of Earth's history were times of abundance when civilization flourished. Famine and drought were the main themes during the colder periods.

If humankind hadn't adapted to the climate that we are choosing to leave behind, probably everything would be OK. While you were watching Fox News though we built coastal cities and farms and factories and homes based on the old climate.

Of course we won't know what the new climate and weather will be like until we stop changing it and the earth's systems restabilize.

It's only money and lives at risk.

Climate has changed throughout man's history. Humanity somehow managed to adapt.

 

[PMZ]

It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow to its current gargantuan size.

The fact that every government now existing tries to mold society doesn't make it right. In the year 1800 virtually every government on earth allowed slavery. Is slavery right?

What is the evidence that our government is ''gargantuan''?

Compared to what?

Compared to our government before WW I.

''It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow''.

Fundamental to conservativism is disrespect for our country, our people, our Constitution, our government.

Exactly like the Taliban.

Criticizing the government is the equivalent of being part of the Taliban?

Do you ever wonder why people think you're an idiot?

I've never minded being thought an idiot by an idiot. In fact, it is to me a point of pride.

No. Disrespecting our country, our people, our Constitution, our government is.

 

[bripat9643]

What is the evidence that our government is ''gargantuan''?

Compared to what?

Compared to our government before WW I.

''It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow''.

Fundamental to conservativism is disrespect for our country, our people, our Constitution, our government.

Exactly like the Taliban.

Criticizing the government is the equivalent of being part of the Taliban?

Do you ever wonder why people think you're an idiot?

No. Disrespecting our country, our people, our Constitution, our government is.

Disrespecting out government is as American as apple pie and fireworks on the 4th of July. I haven't disrespected our country, people or Constitution. Even if I had, that still wouldn't be the equivalent of being part of the Taliban. They are primitive ignorant religious zealots. That's what makes them dangerous, not "disrespecting" their country.

The AGW cult members are much closed to being the Taliban than skeptics are because belief in AGW is a cult, just like Islam.

 

[PMZ]

The appeal to authority is always wrong. Authorities can be wrong, so any claim that a proposition must be true because some authority says it's true is automatically false.

Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Talk:Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BriPat believes that, as the best informed person on earth, he is the authorative standard on all topics. Nothing left to learn.

I think that most of us know how to treat the few people that we meet who hold to that kind of belief.

You still haven't proved that the appeal to authority is a valid argument. You're simply an idiot spewing ad hominems. All your arguments are logical fallacies.

There is nothing to prove. It's common knowledge among civilized people since the advent of the specialization required to leave behind hunting/gathering.

 

[PMZ]

I obviously did read it. I simply noted that it was wrong.

Recorded history supports the contention that a warmer climate would be more conducive to support human life. The warmer periods of Earth's history were times of abundance when civilization flourished. Famine and drought were the main themes during the colder periods.

If humankind hadn't adapted to the climate that we are choosing to leave behind, probably everything would be OK. While you were watching Fox News though we built coastal cities and farms and factories and homes based on the old climate.

Of course we won't know what the new climate and weather will be like until we stop changing it and the earth's systems restabilize.

It's only money and lives at risk.

Climate has changed throughout man's history. Humanity somehow managed to adapt.

And many of us will again. It's only money and lives at risk.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat believes that, as the best informed person on earth, he is the authorative standard on all topics. Nothing left to learn.

I think that most of us know how to treat the few people that we meet who hold to that kind of belief.

You still haven't proved that the appeal to authority is a valid argument. You're simply an idiot spewing ad hominems. All your arguments are logical fallacies.

There is nothing to prove. It's common knowledge among civilized people since the advent of the specialization required to leave behind hunting/gathering.

You mean you still believe the appeal to authority is a valid argument?

 

[bripat9643]

If humankind hadn't adapted to the climate that we are choosing to leave behind, probably everything would be OK. While you were watching Fox News though we built coastal cities and farms and factories and homes based on the old climate.

Of course we won't know what the new climate and weather will be like until we stop changing it and the earth's systems restabilize.

It's only money and lives at risk.

Climate has changed throughout man's history. Humanity somehow managed to adapt.

And many of us will again. It's only money and lives at risk.

Feel free to spend your own money, not mine. I'll spend the rest of my life fighting goosestepping morons like you who feel qualified to spend my money for me.

 

[PMZ]

The same goes for the so-called "climate scientists," dipstick.

Actually, not. They are educated and informed and have chosen to devote their lives and talent to that specialty.

Just like you've chosen to devote your life to watching Fox News.

That makes them authorities on climate science and you an authority on Republican propaganda.

Climate doesn't give a hoot what the "authorities" have to say. That's what you fail to understand.

I agree. Authorities learn about climate, not vice versa.

However smart people learn from those with more expertise on all topics. Even most animals do. You seem to be the sole exception.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, not. They are educated and informed and have chosen to devote their lives and talent to that specialty.

Just like you've chosen to devote your life to watching Fox News.

That makes them authorities on climate science and you an authority on Republican propaganda.

Climate doesn't give a hoot what the "authorities" have to say. That's what you fail to understand.

I agree. Authorities learn about climate, not vice versa.

However smart people learn from those with more expertise on all topics. Even most animals do. You seem to be the sole exception.

Apparently you learn from humbugs and con artists.

 

[PMZ]

Everything that I've ever learned was from someone better informed than I was then and there and in that topic.

 

[PMZ]

Climate has changed throughout man's history. Humanity somehow managed to adapt.

And many of us will again. It's only money and lives at risk.

Feel free to spend your own money, not mine. I'll spend the rest of my life fighting goosestepping morons like you who feel qualified to spend my money for me.

You contributed to the problem, we will hold you accountable for that. That’s how society works.

 

[PMZ]

You still haven't proved that the appeal to authority is a valid argument. You're simply an idiot spewing ad hominems. All your arguments are logical fallacies.

There is nothing to prove. It's common knowledge among civilized people since the advent of the specialization required to leave behind hunting/gathering.

You mean you still believe the appeal to authority is a valid argument?

Everyone but you does. It's called education.

 

[bripat9643]

There is nothing to prove. It's common knowledge among civilized people since the advent of the specialization required to leave behind hunting/gathering.

You mean you still believe the appeal to authority is a valid argument?

Everyone but you does. It's called education.

Wrong. It's called the inability to commit logic. What you call "education" is nothing more than government brainwashing.

 

[bripat9643]

And many of us will again. It's only money and lives at risk.

Feel free to spend your own money, not mine. I'll spend the rest of my life fighting goosestepping morons like you who feel qualified to spend my money for me.

You contributed to the problem, we will hold you accountable for that. That’s how society works.

There is no "problem," moron. People are starting to wake up. When they finally understand the facts, people like you will be laughed out of town.

 

[bripat9643]

Everything that I've ever learned was from someone better informed than I was then and there and in that topic.

That doesn't make them infallible. It appears much of what you learned is bullshit.