Vaccinations; recent developments

[sarkeizen]

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Not exactly the way you seem to be using it.  Authorities, that is people are acceptable sources of information about a subject in an argument.  What is usually meant by "appeal to authority" is when a person cited is not an expert, misinterpreted or is asserting a non-consensus view (which is the case here but it seems more clear to simply say "they are not an expert and they are asserting a non-consensus view")

is not determined by his expertise but by the actual data

An expert saying something to you IS actual data.  It's just data where it's hard to quantify the error.  Didn't you say something roughly like: People absolutely MUST pay attention to people who meet your particular criteria for scientists (careful, diligent) even if they claim something utterly implausible?  I thought, to you ignoring those people would be hubris of the highest order.

Yet here you are saying that it's only their data that matters in terms of judging their rightness or wrongness.

But you seem to be able to judge the rightness or wrongess of making a useful error on the basis of their expertise.

[ramset]

In this case the MIT  "data" is a collation Of 167 Peer reviewed papers specific to the study of  individuals that have been forever "modified"  by some  environmental  "effect"  which has apparently altered their DNA or changed them in other ways not easily understood at this point.


To suggest that these investigations are irrelevant or with out merit or substance is almost beyond belief.


Looney toons to say the least...


I will only post additional Research Data here ,there is no point in your silly "points" its just to argue .
This topic and this Research are not about arguing ,nor are either of you qualified to post an "original" sentence worthy of contribution to this research.


unless you Are secretly involved in your own ongoing research if so Please  contribute..
otherwise you contributions have no Merit beyond "gossip"


thx


Chet

[MarkE]

Not exactly the way you seem to be using it.  Authorities, that is people are acceptable sources of information about a subject in an argument.  What is usually meant by "appeal to authority" is when a person cited is not an expert, misinterpreted or is asserting a non-consensus view (which is the case here but it seems more clear to simply say "they are not an expert and they are asserting a non-consensus view")
An expert saying something to you IS actual data.  It's just data where it's hard to quantify the error.  Didn't you say something roughly like: People absolutely MUST pay attention to people who meet your particular criteria for scientists (careful, diligent) even if they claim something utterly implausible?  I thought, to you ignoring those people would be hubris of the highest order.

Yet here you are saying that it's only their data that matters in terms of judging their rightness or wrongness.

But you seem to be able to judge the rightness or wrongess of making a useful error on the basis of their expertise.

There are also a number of references to an appeal or argument from authority where recognition in one area is illegitimately used to imply a reliable opinion where the speaker is not a SME.  However, I have good references, like this one that go further and state that argument from authority includes accepting a conclusion merely because it is the view of an SME:

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Appeal_to_authority.html 

Lots of SMEs make mistakes sooner or later.  When that has happened in civil engineering the consequences have sometimes been disastrous.

[sarkeizen]

However, I have good references

Is that an intentional joke? Because accepting a definition of "argument from authority" from a "good reference" is effectively an argument from authority in the particular sense of accepting a conclusion ("an argument from authority is...") from someone simply because they are a SME ("a good reference").

like this one that go further and state that argument from authority includes accepting a conclusion merely because it is the view of an SME:

It seems to say to accept an authority as infallible is fallacious.  Which is fine but I doubt a) that's really what you were talking about when you were contrasting the authority with data and b) it's probably not what the arguer - sorry I really can't remember the particular nutbars name in this case - had in mind.   In a everyday argument people do not have to assert that they consider some person, source or *gasp* even the sacred DATUM are fallible because we know they all are.  An informal argument isn't to produce a NECESSARY conclusion (necessarily ) but a reasonable one.

It would be different someone claimed or was in some kind of context where they were making a FORMAL logical argument.  In which case that sense of "argument from authority" would be a useful criticism.   However even data in that context would fall under the same criticism.   Which puts some pretty heavy limits on what can be discussed in that context.  Which is IMHO kind of the limitation which Wittgenstein was on about.  That said formal reasoning isn't without merit because it's good to show where the gaps are.  Where we have to rely on some person, reference, data...which is sort of where I was going when I was pushing profits for a formal argument back when I was hijacking the quenco thread.

[sarkeizen]

collation Of 167 Peer reviewed papers specific to the study of  individuals that have been forever "modified"  by some  environmental  "effect"  which has apparently altered their DNA or changed them in other ways not easily understood at this point.

Well, as we all know you haven't read any of them.  So actually all you have is someone's claim that 167 papers exist.  I'd point out that what we are discussing are vaccines and unless you've described the character poorly.  None of them have to be about vaccines or any ingredient in them. 

To suggest that these investigations are irrelevant or with out merit or substance is almost beyond belief.

Looney toons to say the least...

So you assert that ANY collection of papers totally 167 in number MUST BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RELEVANT TO ANYTHING?  Seems like the answer there would be "no" in both cases.  So you're still kind of stuck having to make a case between these alleged 167 papers and something even remotely like what we are discussing.

As I said why not pick out one paper which presents the STRONGEST EVIDENCE AGAINST VACCINES and we can destro....discuss it.

I will only post additional Research Data here ,there is no point in your silly "points" its just to argue .

"Additional" implies that you have already provided research data.  I'll I've seen is a claim by you.

nor are either of you qualified to post an "original" sentence worthy of contribution to this research.

Wrong.  I am qualified to review papers that use statistical methods.  So go ahead and post some of this research, actual papers and we will see what we will see....idiot.