Who wrote the Gospels?

[Guest]

Lots of ignorance in this thread.

I see a number of grandiose appeals to authority.

 

[wavy]

Lots of ignorance in this thread.

I see a number of grandiose appeals to authority.

Curious...where?

Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

Lots of ignorance in this thread.

I see a number of grandiose appeals to authority.

Curious...where?

I was just making a general observation.

 

[wavy]

Lots of ignorance in this thread.

I see a number of grandiose appeals to authority.

Curious...where?

I was just making a general observation.

So you have no relevant details to contribute?

Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

I was just making a general observation.

So you have no relevant details to contribute?

I do.

 

[wavy]

I do.

Let's have them. Don't hold back.

Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

I do.

Let's have them. Don't hold back.

Why?

 

[wavy]

Why?

You don't have to if you don't want to. I was just granting you the opportunity to recover from what looks like an invidious attempt at mimicry; but they do say that's flattery. So consider me flattered if that was the point instead of contributing something useful to this thread.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

Why?

You don't have to if you don't want to. I was just granting you the opportunity to recover from what looks like an invidious attempt at mimicry; but they do say that's flattery. So consider me flattered if that was the point instead of contributing something useful to this thread.

Or, perhaps my point was to advance the discussion by provoking people involved to watch for a specific appeal in hopes of avoiding the whole "my authority can beat up your authority" bit.

 

[wavy]

Or, perhaps my point was to advance the discussion by provoking people involved to watch for a specific appeal in hopes of avoiding the whole "my authority can beat up your authority" bit.

No one seems to have quoted any authority, other than themselves, but me. Until they do, my authorities definitely 'beat up' their own (which is none at all).


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Guest]

No one seems to have quoted any authority, other than themselves, but me. Until they do, my authorities definitely 'beat up' their own (which is none at all).

And you were wondering where those appeals were?

 

[wavy]

And you were wondering where those appeals were?

Indeed. Citing an authority isn't an 'appeal to [an] authority'. So I wonder what the object is of your 'general observation'.

Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

And you were wondering where those appeals were?

Indeed. Citing an authority isn't an 'appeal to the authority'.

Indeed. I agree. An appeal to authority, as a fallacy, is when authority serves as the foundation of one's argument. It's like might makes right. The "stronger" person's opinion (or authority) is consider the right opinion.

 

[wavy]

Indeed. I agree. An appeal to authority, as a fallacy, is when authority serves as the foundation of one's argument. It's like might makes right. The "stronger" person's opinion (or authority) is consider the right opinion.

That's a very naive view of an 'appeal to authority'. One commits the fallacy when the appeal is misleading in some way. There are a few ways one could do this...none of which I am guilty of. See a couple of accessible authorities on this matter: 1) here; 2) here.

Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

That's a very naive view of an 'appeal to authority'.

Poisoning the well. I love it.

One commits the fallacy when the appeal is misleading in some way. There are a few ways one could do this...none of which I am guilty of. See a couple of accessible authorities on this matter: 1) here; 2) here.

This is certainly one way in which appeal to authority can be fallacious. However, simply because an authority claims something to be the case does not make it so. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[wavy]

Poisoning the well. I love it.

This misused fallacy charge of poisoning the well is just as flagrant as the charge of a fallacious appeal to authority.

This is certainly one way in which appeal to authority can be fallacious. However, simply because an authority claims something to be the case does not make it so. Wouldn't you agree?

Any reasonable man would agree, of course. But that has nothing to do with determining the probability of the authority's being correct or with citing an authority to amplify an argument.

Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

Poisoning the well. I love it.

This misused fallacy charge of poisoning the well is just as flagrant as the charge of a fallacious appeal to authority.

Well, you would have a point had such a charge been my intention. However, poisoning the well, like an ad hominem, can occur without being the foundation of one's argument. Thus, it serves as a rhetorical strategy instead.

This is certainly one way in which appeal to authority can be fallacious. However, simply because an authority claims something to be the case does not make it so. Wouldn't you agree?

Any reasonable man would agree, of course. But that has nothing to do with determining the probability of the authority's being correct or with citing an authority to amplify an argument.

Indeed. So, upon what grounds should those in this thread (a) accept the perspectives of your authorities, and (b) why should they dismiss the perspectives of authorities who disagree with your own selected authorities.

 

[wavy]

Well, you would have a point had such a charge been my intention. However, poisoning the well, like an ad hominem, can occur without being the foundation of one's argument. Thus, it serves as a rhetorical strategy instead.

Not interested in strategies of rhetoric.

Indeed. So, upon what grounds should those in this thread (a) accept the perspectives of your authorities, and (b) why should they dismiss the perspectives of authorities who disagree with your own selected authorities.

a) Because we trust the authorities over us to know what they're talking about when we're not qualified to contradict them.

b) No authorities on their behalf have even been cited. And I doubt they will find any. The gospels being eyewitness accounts and generally historically reliable or not are obviously a matter of debate, and citing an authority in this regard for either side without acknowledging the reasonings behind them would definitely be fallacious. But I was addressing the consensus. Whether their (as of yet unquoted) authorities disagree with the views of the consensus does not mean the consensus is not...the consensus. And the specialists in the field I cited could certainly be trusted to know what the consensus is.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

a) Because we trust the authorities over us to know what they're talking about when we're not qualified to contradict them.

Trust? Why?

b) No authorities on their behalf have even been cited. And I doubt they will find any. The gospels being eyewitness accounts and generally historically reliable or not are obviously a matter of debate, and citing an authority in this regard for either side without acknowledging the reasonings behind them would definitely be fallacious. But I was addressing the consensus. Whether their (as of yet unquoted) authorities disagree with the views of the consensus does not mean the consensus is not...the consensus. And the specialists in the field I cited could certainly be trusted to know what the consensus is.

Translation: Because I said so.

 

[wavy]

Trust? Why?

Translation: Because I said so.

Right, I only 'said so' because you say so. We could play that game all day; but you are uncharitable and continuing this conversation is waste of time unless you actually bring something to the table. You are obviously not serious, or equipped, to dialogue with me on this matter.

The word of scholars is meaningless, I suppose, when they don't coincide with your beliefs, although I'm certain you would not scruple to cite any in your favor.

Finis,
Eric