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 (7658)	3/12/2009 7:31:59 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 13062

Again not someone - the vast majority of scholars Which makes it a stronger and more reasonable argument from authority, particularly if its an area where we have a solid understanding. "CO2 operate as a greenhouse gas" would (if we didn't have any other information and we needed to rely on authority) would be a better subject for an argument from authority than "the world is warming because of human emission of CO2", which would in turn be a better subject for such an argument than "nationalized health care insurance would be the best system for the US". The first is a specific hard science factual question, about an issue where our scientific understanding is very solid. The 2nd is a much more complex question, about an issue where the understanding is less complete, and the science less "hard". The third is a question across multiple disciplines, including relatively "soft" sciences like economics, and its a very complex and not well defined question, and also one that relies on personal philosophical ideas, and preferences. Its simply not a question where any sort of authority (or if you wish "majority of scholars") is all that relevant. and not right - the best and most plausible theory In many real world arguments (as opposed to perfectly structured syllogisms) the distinction isn't always that clear. In a sense the theory of relativity is "right", even though its imperfect/incomplete and may be superseded like it superseded Newtonian theory (which is less false, then imperfect, or "largely correct" in the "special case" of the normal environment we experience every day).