The appeal to authority fallacy.
It is not an appeal to authority fallacy when the credentials in question prove actual authority over the subject matter.
The appeal to authority fallacy is a fallacy because it assumes identity of the person making the assertion is enough to prove that the conclusion is correct whether the premise and conclusion link up logically.
premise: bone conditioning is an effective form of training and increases combat effectiveness and prevents injury because Dr. X says so.
Conclusion: therefore, bone conditioning is effective.
Sound stupid, doesn’t it?
[quote=crappler;2130813]The appeal to authority fallacy is a fallacy because it assumes identity of the person making the assertion is enough to prove that the conclusion is correct whether the premise and conclusion link up logically.
premise: bone conditioning is an effective form of training and increases combat effectiveness and prevents injury because Dr. X says so.
Conclusion: therefore, bone conditioning is effective.
Sound stupid, doesn’t it?[/quote]
You are arguing your point in a vacuum. MaverickZ NOT SUGGESTING the “because” reason is just because the “scientist” says so. He is trying to establish the person’s credentials to make an argument which is not from ignorance - i.e. he has authority over the subject matter to make a valid argument in the first place.
It becomes a fallacy when you HAVE TO HAVE THE CREDENTIAL to have an opinion or evaluate the subject at all. If you’re automatically wrong without the authority, it’s a fallacy of some sort.
Although “appeal to authority” is traditionally the name given to quashing dissent/contradicting criticism by saying, “Whatever, I’m the authority and you aren’t”
You certainly can have actual credentials and still commit this fallacy - often times innocently out of lack of time or patience for explanation.
Some of you people don’t understand the meaning of the terms you use. The argument from authority makes no sense as I have made no claim about the topic at hand. If anything it’s an ad hominem attack, jeez.
I love it when mods get on a thread and start arguing the shit out of semantics. I guess none of you will trollshido your own thread. Would be cool though!
It was an appeal to motive fallacy if anything, gosh!
By the by, would anyone like my opinion on mongolian wrestling? I saw it on tv once and man, those outfits are just dumb.
“Science” and fighting don’t mix
Nothing wrong with semantics, this is the written word. It’s funny that people use it as a negative.
I guess none of you will trollshido your own thread. Would be cool though!
Really? I can point you to this happening multiple times.
You’ve been humored enough. Stop shitposting.
Culled from:
Where is the proof that ‘Bone Conditioning’ isn’t BS? - No BS Martial Arts
Like right here. I just culled a stupid tangent which I caused.
I’m an expert on fallacies, would youl like me to settle this?
Really? I can point you to this happening multiple times.
Um, no need!!
[quote=It is Fake;2130954]Nothing wrong with semantics, this is the written word. It’s funny that people use it as a negative.
[/quote]Says the master of Semantic-fu on this board…
Don’t bother arguing, you know it’s true…!
[quote=Vorpal;2131026]I’m an expert on phalluscies, would youl like me to settle this?[/quote]Fixed that for ya…!
[quote=JingMerchant!;2131233]Says the master of Semantic-fu on this board…
Don’t bother arguing, you know it’s true…![/quote]
Of course. It is true.