Who wrote the Gospels?

[wavy]

Nice rhetorical strategy. I have no issues with people using their education. It's when they lord it over others.

I assume by 'lord it over others' you mean refute claims that are demonstrably false and not based upon knowledge or research, in which case there is nothing wrong with me 'lording' it. People should appreciate knowledge.

Well, not quite. Posioning the well can be an attack on the person or the argument. Though, both have been employed.

Yes, quite. And attacks on arguments, simply by being attacks on arguments, are never fallacious, so much less do they involve the poisoning of wells. In fact, attacking an argument is the very point of debate when two or more sides are convinced that the other is wrong. Or what did you think both you and I are doing at present?

Really?

Really.

Weak and cynical? That's like name calling for arguments.

An arguments is only as good as its. It is labeled accordingly. And in your case, it was indeed weak and cynical.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

We trust experts because, by very definition, they are more than likely to know what they're talking about vis-a-vis some one, such as you and others in this thread, who have not the necessary qualifications to deliver judgments in the fields of inquiry concerned.

An expert is more likely to render a better judgment than a non-expert, but it would be a mistake to suggest an expert will necessarily render a better judgment. The possibility of an expert judgment being inferior to that of a non-expert means an argument based solely on the authority of an expert does not necessarily follow to be true, and claims otherwise are fallacious. Appeals to authority are acceptable only when both parties engaged accept the authority. This creates a problem when another appeals to authority which the other party does not accept. Hence, it is much better to appeal to the evidence and formulate the arguments for oneself.

Additionally, there are no necessary qualifications for delivering judgments in any discipline. There may be required qualifications for particular social contexts, but an informal Internet discussion is not such a context.

But I'm sure you knew that already and are simply reluctant to answer my question. You've dug your hole now so that answering truthfully would defeat your purposes here and flat out lying would make you look ignorant.

This question is still irrelevant to my purpose.

I assume by 'lord it over others' you mean refute claims that are demonstrably false and not based upon knowledge or research, in which case there is nothing wrong with me 'lording' it. People should appreciate knowledge.

I meant the continuing need to express a perceived superiority -- intellectually and educationally -- at the expense of others.

Well, not quite. Posioning the well can be an attack on the person or the argument. Though, both have been employed.

Yes, quite. And attacks on arguments, simply by being attacks on arguments, are never fallacious, so much less do they involve the poisoning of wells. In fact, attacking an argument is the very point of debate when two or more sides are convinced that the other is wrong. Or what did you think both you and I are doing at present?

I am using "attack" to mean a counter-argument, specifically one which attempts to shift the focus of debate away from the validity of an argument to a value judgment about the person presenting the argument or the argument itself. Simply because one considers an argument to be "weak and cynical" does not mean the argument is invalid.

To come full circle, my point is that much of what you have argued is rooted in authority rather than reason and evidence. That is, you use the authorities to make your arguments rather than making them yourself. Then, you chose to abuse this authority by promoting yourself as superior to others. I do not like bullies. Thus, to dethrone the bully, the simplest rhetorical strategy was to attack the authorities upon which the bully based his arguments. Plus, it has the added benefit of being really annoying when people refuse to accept your authorities and the best argument you can put forth is "just because" or "by definition." So, that said, I had fun.

 

[wavy]

An expert is more likely to render a better judgment than a non-expert, but it would be a mistake to suggest an expert will necessarily render a better judgment. The possibility of an expert judgment being inferior to that of a non-expert means an argument based solely on the authority of an expert does not necessarily follow to be true, and claims otherwise are fallacious. Appeals to authority are acceptable only when both parties engaged accept the authority. This creates a problem when another appeals to authority which the other party does not accept. Hence, it is much better to appeal to the evidence and formulate the arguments for oneself.

See red. This personal dictum of yours is obviously something you just made up off-the-cuff. No one in any professional discipline would ever support such a groundless opinion.

Since you are not an authority and neither is anyone else in this thread, by default any actual authority I cite holds priority over anything you or anyone else has to say. If you disagree with the authority you have to have a plausible reason why you disagree. You have not informed one reason why the authorities I cited are wrong, you have not the slenderest string of evidence against them, so your rejection of their deliverances is baseless--in the way of methodology, epistemically unsound, inconsistent and irrational.

If one asked you for your criterion for receiving and/or rejecting the authorities over you when you have no inklings of proof against them, you would be at a loss for words. Your rejection would be totally whimsical. I've asked you why you reject the authorities I've cited and, as anyone with half open mind and eyes will note, you refuse to answer for patent reasons, instead creating your own ludicrous standards not recognized by anybody...if you would only pick up a professional book on any topic and learn for yourself.

When you take your kid to the doctor and he prescribes something for them, do you undertake years in medical school to learn everything the doctor learned before you comply with his expertise and go to the pharmacy and get the prescription for you kid? Naturally not. You repose a rational trust in the doctor's authority because in all probability he knows what he's talking about and it would be impractical and, for all intents and purposes, foolish to question him on the basis of absolutely nothing.

Additionally, there are no necessary qualifications for delivering judgments in any discipline. There may be required qualifications for particular social contexts, but an informal Internet discussion is not such a context.

This is merely your excuse for your failure to provide any reasons why the authorities I cited are wrong.

This question is still irrelevant to my purpose

No, it's a fundamental issue, and you don't want to answer it. Not only that, you can't even figure out what it is you're trying to say.

I meant the continuing need to express a perceived superiority -- intellectually and educationally -- at the expense of others.

Proving that some one does not know what they're talking about has nothing to to with expressing superiority.

I am using "attack" to mean a counter-argument, specifically one which attempts to shift the focus of debate away from the validity of an argument to a value judgment about the person presenting the argument or the argument itself. Simply because one considers an argument to be "weak and cynical" does not mean the argument is invalid

How ironic, because that's exactly what you're doing: trying to divert attention away from the issue I was discussing with others (gospel genre and dating) and baselessly charging me with some superiority complex. It is no problem for or negative reflection on me that I can prove certain assertions demonstrably false.

To come full circle, my point is that much of what you have argued is rooted in authority rather than reason and evidence. That is, you use the authorities to make your arguments rather than making them yourself. Then, you chose to abuse this authority by promoting yourself as superior to others. I do not like bullies. Thus, to dethrone the bully, the simplest rhetorical strategy was to attack the authorities upon which the bully based his arguments. Plus, it has the added benefit of being really annoying when people refuse to accept your authorities and the best argument you can put forth is "just because" or "by definition." So, that said, I had fun.

Yes, you are a real hero for charging through making baseless accusations, contradicting yourself and failing to defend your claims.


So this conversation is done. Please read a book and get a clue.


Finis,
Eric