Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doren who wrote (7584)	3/12/2009 4:03:00 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

"I cite the 98.5% " lololol I don't know of one who believes in Man Made Global, they all say it's solar, sun spots and we have been cooling for 10 years. I know a lot of NASA scientists

To: Doren who wrote (7584)	3/12/2009 5:32:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

I cite the 98.5% of research scientists who are very concerned that the evidence that the theory is correct is nearly overwhelming. Rather than get distracted with a discussion of global warming, I'll ignore that issue and just say that you don't have anything that resembles "98.5% of research scientists" backing this study as evidence that we should have nationalized health care. And even if you did neither their opinion nor that of the CEO's would be definitive. Not only are arguments from authority week with the best of authorities, but for a complex, cross area (political, economic, statistical, logical, medical, etc.) issue like that there are no reasonable authorities to use for an argument from authority. And the basic logic of the study is false. As I pointed out. They are counting factors that are part of the reason for our lower life expectancy, as factors that add on to the negative points they give us for lower life expectancies. That's just crazy as a point of basic reasoning, and if 97% of the people, if 99% of CEOs, or 98.5% of research scientists supported it (none of which is true), they would still be obviously wrong on that point. (Which doesn't necessarily make the study wrong on the larger issue, but its shows that one of its specific arguments is worthless.) It just depends on who you think is credible. No it doesn't. Something isn't true, or even overwhelmingly likely to be true, just because some credible source says it is. Arguments from authority are one of the weakest types of arguments not one of the strongest. There better for highly limited and specific claims of fact. Not that they are 100% reliable even then, but in the absence of anything better you go with the credible authority, but for larger issues arguments from authority are very weak, and for complex political and economic issues there simply is no credible authority.