|
|
Famous physicist fallacy?Person A asserts something as true because a famous physicist said it.
Arguendo, whether or not it is true, the assertion is about the famous physicist's saying it. Person B, who disagrees with A, says: 1. the famous physicist is a known troll, so what he says is just nonsense 2. the famous physicist is paid by x to say these things, so.... 3. the famous physicist is not known for [subset of physics], but [other subset of physics], so..... 4. the famous physicist is known for physics, but the issue is another named science, so.... 5. the famous physicist is known for physics, but the issue is another named topic, so.... 6. the famous physicist is retired, so.... Both Person A and Person B are using fallacious reasoning, imo, but in rhetoric, what choice is there? ====================================== [edit] Person B only stopped b/c his keyboard broke...;) [edit 2] an answer uses several versions... www.quora.com/Why-do-famo. . . |
| asked on Thursday, Jun 27, 2019 03:28:52 PM by DrBill | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
Ultimately, it's a false choice because it's not about the famous physicist (Transfer Fallacy) or his or her shortcomings (ad hominem credibility). It's about the veracity of the claim.
For instance: Referring to his own theory of a Cosmological Constant, Einstein was swayed by evidence and changed his mind - calling it, 'My biggest blunder'. A famous physicist said it so it must be true: the theory of a Cosmological Constant was a colossal blunder. No, in fact, it wasn't a blunder at all but largely correct. It's just not caused by anti-gravity within the universe, but by the gravitational forces of matter outside our finite spherical universe within an infinite space. |
| answered on Thursday, Jun 27, 2019 03:55:17 PM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
| |
