Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Both aspects are relevant which is my point. Certainly, an expert will explain in detail the basis of his or her opinion, but equally importantly, will give his or her qualifications and experience to render that opinion. From experience I would say both aspects are equally important.
You say you are not making an appeal to authority argument, but when you say we should disregard the opinions of all experts who have weighed in on HOF votes, and focus solely on the numbers or other merits, I think you are making such an argument or a species of one. For example, if the five leading experts on a particular disease opine that a certain treatment works, in addition to considering the substance of their argument, I would give weight to the fact of their opinions.
|
I am saying we should focus on the reasons he is or is not deserving of being in the HOF. The fact that the voters did not vote for him is not a reason he is or is not deserving - it is irrelevant who makes the argument. An argument is not valid or true or reasoned because I make it or you make it or a HOF voter makes it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
You say you are not making an appeal to authority argument, but when you say we should disregard the opinions of all experts who have weighed in on HOF votes, and focus solely on the numbers or other merits, I think you are making such an argument or a species of one.
|
You can believe that focusing on the actual reasoned argument rather than who makes it is an appeal to authority, but that is plainly factually false. We've hit the point of complete ridiculousness again. If a conman says something, that does not make it false. If the world's foremost expert says something, that does not make it true. In both cases there is an actual reason it is true or false and you know that very well. There's nothing reasonable to say to this lol