Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The irony of 9/11 Truthers

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 7:38:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 6:07:35 PM, Polaris wrote:


Cool video. I like this guy!
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 7:50:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM, DanT wrote:
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies, yes?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 10:13:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 7:50:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM, DanT wrote:
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies, yes?

Yes
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 6:57:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 2:42:48 AM, Wnope wrote:
The irony is that their title includes the word "Truth."

I was waiting for this.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 11:57:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 6:57:42 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/14/2013 2:42:48 AM, Wnope wrote:
The irony is that their title includes the word "Truth."

I was waiting for this.
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 12:00:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 10:13:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/13/2013 7:50:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM, DanT wrote:
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies, yes?

Yes

Not really ...

everything is an appeal to authority. If you cite a expert in the field that has been working there for years is technically an appeal to authority. The question isn't if it is an appeal or not, but rather is the appeal in this case appropriate or not which requires two conditions to be filled: legitimate expertise and expert consensus. Without it, it becomes an inappropriate appeal to authority and thus fallacious.
Thank you for voting!
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:16:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 12:00:07 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/13/2013 10:13:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/13/2013 7:50:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM, DanT wrote:
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies, yes?

Yes

Not really ...

everything is an appeal to authority. If you cite a expert in the field that has been working there for years is technically an appeal to authority. The question isn't if it is an appeal or not, but rather is the appeal in this case appropriate or not which requires two conditions to be filled: legitimate expertise and expert consensus. Without it, it becomes an inappropriate appeal to authority and thus fallacious.

+
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 1:41:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ya isn't appeal to authority saying its so because the president said it was so. Calling on experts is just supporting your case.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 2:17:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
9/11 truthers are the biggest group of idiots I have ever seen. They are so delusional, they think they know the "truth" when it's just conspiracy nonsense...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 2:18:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 12:00:07 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/13/2013 10:13:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/13/2013 7:50:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM, DanT wrote:
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies, yes?

Yes

Not really ...

everything is an appeal to authority. If you cite a expert in the field that has been working there for years is technically an appeal to authority. The question isn't if it is an appeal or not, but rather is the appeal in this case appropriate or not which requires two conditions to be filled: legitimate expertise and expert consensus. Without it, it becomes an inappropriate appeal to authority and thus fallacious.

Just because an "expert" says something does not make it true. Unless the "expert" can logically explain why their statement is true, it does not matter what the expert said. If you quote an expert's rationalization of the situation, it is a citation not an appeal to authority; if you quote an expert's assertion, it is an appeal to authority.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 2:24:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 2:17:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
9/11 truthers are the biggest group of idiots I have ever seen. They are so delusional, they think they know the "truth" when it's just conspiracy nonsense...

Here is a conversation between me and a truther;

Me: "The use of words by Truthers is tantamount to Orwellian Newspeak. When a truther uses words like 'science' and 'truth' they really mean 'religion' and 'opinion'."

Truther: "science is not bias nomatter who does it if it is done correctly and honestly."

Me: "Exactly, so that is not science. Science cannot be bias, but scientists can. When scientists are bias the product is pseudoscience."

Truther: "you're a total idiot"

Me: "There we go with the ad hominem attacks again."

Truther: "no more truth"

Me: "And by 'truth' you mean 'opinion'. Thanx for proving my point about the newspeak."
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 3:13:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 2:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:

Just because an "expert" says something does not make it true. Unless the "expert" can logically explain why their statement is true, it does not matter what the expert said. If you quote an expert's rationalization of the situation, it is a citation not an appeal to authority; if you quote an expert's assertion, it is an appeal to authority.

You seem to be inventing your own criteria here.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 3:38:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 1:16:43 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 12:00:07 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/13/2013 10:13:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/13/2013 7:50:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM, DanT wrote:
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies, yes?

Yes

Not really ...

everything is an appeal to authority. If you cite a expert in the field that has been working there for years is technically an appeal to authority. The question isn't if it is an appeal or not, but rather is the appeal in this case appropriate or not which requires two conditions to be filled: legitimate expertise and expert consensus. Without it, it becomes an inappropriate appeal to authority and thus fallacious.

+
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 3:40:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 2:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/14/2013 12:00:07 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/13/2013 10:13:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/13/2013 7:50:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM, DanT wrote:
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies, yes?

Yes

Not really ...

everything is an appeal to authority. If you cite a expert in the field that has been working there for years is technically an appeal to authority. The question isn't if it is an appeal or not, but rather is the appeal in this case appropriate or not which requires two conditions to be filled: legitimate expertise and expert consensus. Without it, it becomes an inappropriate appeal to authority and thus fallacious.

Just because an "expert" says something does not make it true. Unless the "expert" can logically explain why their statement is true, it does not matter what the expert said. If you quote an expert's rationalization of the situation, it is a citation not an appeal to authority; if you quote an expert's assertion, it is an appeal to authority.

Lol no. This is why you get on the weekly stupid.
The only criteria for an appeal to authority is what an authoritative figure says on a subject. That's it. The question after is if it is appropriate or not. It is appropriate only after the expert is considered along with the consensus of the field.
Everything you just added is not objectively logical criteria for an appeal and is just your subjective criteria for what you want it to be.
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 3:54:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 3:40:38 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/14/2013 2:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/14/2013 12:00:07 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/13/2013 10:13:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/13/2013 7:50:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM, DanT wrote:
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies, yes?

Yes

Not really ...

everything is an appeal to authority. If you cite a expert in the field that has been working there for years is technically an appeal to authority. The question isn't if it is an appeal or not, but rather is the appeal in this case appropriate or not which requires two conditions to be filled: legitimate expertise and expert consensus. Without it, it becomes an inappropriate appeal to authority and thus fallacious.

Just because an "expert" says something does not make it true. Unless the "expert" can logically explain why their statement is true, it does not matter what the expert said. If you quote an expert's rationalization of the situation, it is a citation not an appeal to authority; if you quote an expert's assertion, it is an appeal to authority.

Lol no. This is why you get on the weekly stupid.
The only criteria for an appeal to authority is what an authoritative figure says on a subject. That's it. The question after is if it is appropriate or not. It is appropriate only after the expert is considered along with the consensus of the field.
Everything you just added is not objectively logical criteria for an appeal and is just your subjective criteria for what you want it to be.

I actually agree with both of you here. An appeal to authority without any real rationalization or explanation is not necessarily very useful, and personally I would dig for an actual explanation beyond just a bald assertion, had I any interest in a topic.

In a debate, I tend to read things that I am interested in, so if someone cites a bald assertion based upon an appeal to authority, and the opponent is able to proffer a rational explanation contrary to it, I will take the rational explanation. That's just me though.

I mean, in the end, it doesn't matter nearly as much as to whether or not you can stick a fancy moniker to an argument that isn't convincing, than whether or not you can actually forward a convincing argument. If JFK endorsed Hitler, for example, that doesn't make Hitler a good person.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 4:03:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 2:42:48 AM, Wnope wrote:
The irony is that their title includes the word "Truth."

lol, it's "TruthER", like "dumb and dumbER"...=)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 4:05:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 3:13:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 2:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:

Just because an "expert" says something does not make it true. Unless the "expert" can logically explain why their statement is true, it does not matter what the expert said. If you quote an expert's rationalization of the situation, it is a citation not an appeal to authority; if you quote an expert's assertion, it is an appeal to authority.

You seem to be inventing your own criteria here.

No I am not. An appeal to authority is when you make an argument based on authority rather than logic. A citation is when you give credit to someone else when borrowing their logic.
"the economist said 'minimum wage causes unemployment'" is an appeal to authority.
"the economist said 'because minimum wage sets a minimum requirement for nominal wages, when the minimum wage is greater than the equilibrium wage, it results in unemployment." is a citation, because it lays out the logic rather than just appealing to the opinion of the economist.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 4:09:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 3:40:38 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/14/2013 2:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/14/2013 12:00:07 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/13/2013 10:13:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/13/2013 7:50:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM, DanT wrote:
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies, yes?

Yes

Not really ...

everything is an appeal to authority. If you cite a expert in the field that has been working there for years is technically an appeal to authority. The question isn't if it is an appeal or not, but rather is the appeal in this case appropriate or not which requires two conditions to be filled: legitimate expertise and expert consensus. Without it, it becomes an inappropriate appeal to authority and thus fallacious.

Just because an "expert" says something does not make it true. Unless the "expert" can logically explain why their statement is true, it does not matter what the expert said. If you quote an expert's rationalization of the situation, it is a citation not an appeal to authority; if you quote an expert's assertion, it is an appeal to authority.

Lol no. This is why you get on the weekly stupid.
The only criteria for an appeal to authority is what an authoritative figure says on a subject. That's it. The question after is if it is appropriate or not. It is appropriate only after the expert is considered along with the consensus of the field.
Everything you just added is not objectively logical criteria for an appeal and is just your subjective criteria for what you want it to be.

I only appeared on the weekly stupid once, as far as I know, and it was quoting me out of context. The weekly stupid is moronic. I mean look who is running it; it is like the pot calling the kettle black.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 4:35:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 4:09:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/14/2013 3:40:38 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/14/2013 2:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/14/2013 12:00:07 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/13/2013 10:13:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/13/2013 7:50:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM, DanT wrote:
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies, yes?

Yes

Not really ...

everything is an appeal to authority. If you cite a expert in the field that has been working there for years is technically an appeal to authority. The question isn't if it is an appeal or not, but rather is the appeal in this case appropriate or not which requires two conditions to be filled: legitimate expertise and expert consensus. Without it, it becomes an inappropriate appeal to authority and thus fallacious.

Just because an "expert" says something does not make it true. Unless the "expert" can logically explain why their statement is true, it does not matter what the expert said. If you quote an expert's rationalization of the situation, it is a citation not an appeal to authority; if you quote an expert's assertion, it is an appeal to authority.

Lol no. This is why you get on the weekly stupid.
The only criteria for an appeal to authority is what an authoritative figure says on a subject. That's it. The question after is if it is appropriate or not. It is appropriate only after the expert is considered along with the consensus of the field.
Everything you just added is not objectively logical criteria for an appeal and is just your subjective criteria for what you want it to be.

I only appeared on the weekly stupid once, as far as I know, and it was quoting me out of context. The weekly stupid is moronic. I mean look who is running it; it is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Question for you: Do you like South Park?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 4:42:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 4:09:29 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/14/2013 3:40:38 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/14/2013 2:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/14/2013 12:00:07 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/13/2013 10:13:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/13/2013 7:50:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 9/13/2013 5:56:08 PM, DanT wrote:
Most of their arguments are appeals to authority.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies, yes?

Yes

Not really ...

everything is an appeal to authority. If you cite a expert in the field that has been working there for years is technically an appeal to authority. The question isn't if it is an appeal or not, but rather is the appeal in this case appropriate or not which requires two conditions to be filled: legitimate expertise and expert consensus. Without it, it becomes an inappropriate appeal to authority and thus fallacious.

Just because an "expert" says something does not make it true. Unless the "expert" can logically explain why their statement is true, it does not matter what the expert said. If you quote an expert's rationalization of the situation, it is a citation not an appeal to authority; if you quote an expert's assertion, it is an appeal to authority.

Lol no. This is why you get on the weekly stupid.
The only criteria for an appeal to authority is what an authoritative figure says on a subject. That's it. The question after is if it is appropriate or not. It is appropriate only after the expert is considered along with the consensus of the field.
Everything you just added is not objectively logical criteria for an appeal and is just your subjective criteria for what you want it to be.

I only appeared on the weekly stupid once, as far as I know, and it was quoting me out of context. The weekly stupid is moronic. I mean look who is running it; it is like the pot calling the kettle black.

actually twice ...

and actually they were well deserved.
Thank you for voting!
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 4:45:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 4:05:34 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/14/2013 3:13:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 2:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:

Just because an "expert" says something does not make it true. Unless the "expert" can logically explain why their statement is true, it does not matter what the expert said. If you quote an expert's rationalization of the situation, it is a citation not an appeal to authority; if you quote an expert's assertion, it is an appeal to authority.

You seem to be inventing your own criteria here.

No I am not. An appeal to authority is when you make an argument based on authority rather than logic. A citation is when you give credit to someone else when borrowing their logic.
"the economist said 'minimum wage causes unemployment'" is an appeal to authority.
"the economist said 'because minimum wage sets a minimum requirement for nominal wages, when the minimum wage is greater than the equilibrium wage, it results in unemployment." is a citation, because it lays out the logic rather than just appealing to the opinion of the economist.

Reiterating the criterion you've invented doesn't change the fact that you've invented them.

An appeal to authority is just that. There is nothing I have seen anywhere that specifies that an appeal to authority must be sans explanation. An appeal to authority may or may not include a detailed explanation of the position. A citation is a reference to some (usually) academic work authored by another included in the body of a text.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 4:58:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 4:05:34 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/14/2013 3:13:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 2:18:10 PM, DanT wrote:

Just because an "expert" says something does not make it true. Unless the "expert" can logically explain why their statement is true, it does not matter what the expert said. If you quote an expert's rationalization of the situation, it is a citation not an appeal to authority; if you quote an expert's assertion, it is an appeal to authority.

You seem to be inventing your own criteria here.

No I am not.

Actually yes you are

An appeal to authority is when you make an argument based on authority rather than logic.

Wrong, it's making note of what an authoritative figure says on the subject.

A citation is when you give credit to someone else when borrowing their logic.

Right ...
"the economist said 'minimum wage causes unemployment'" is an appeal to authority.

Right...
"the economist said 'because minimum wage sets a minimum requirement for nominal wages, when the minimum wage is greater than the equilibrium wage, it results in unemployment." is a citation, because it lays out the logic rather than just appealing to the opinion of the economist.

Close! Still an appeal to authority, because the economist is an expert or an authority on the economy it's still an appeal. Logic or not, still an appeal. Again is it appropriate? On the basis of 1) he is an economist then yes, expert consensus though ..
Thank you for voting!
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 5:11:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm going to have to side with DanT here. If you use an expert's opinion, than it's appeal to his authority, but if you use an expert's logic, it's an appeal to his logic. Simply saying that an expert agrees with you is Appeal to his Authority. If you say the experts well rounded logic and reasoning and x-amount of research agrees with you, then it's not fallacious.

One is quoting the expert, the other is quoting the reasoning.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 5:22:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 5:11:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm going to have to side with DanT here. If you use an expert's opinion, than it's appeal to his authority, but if you use an expert's logic, it's an appeal to his logic. Simply saying that an expert agrees with you is Appeal to his Authority. If you say the experts well rounded logic and reasoning and x-amount of research agrees with you, then it's not fallacious.

One is quoting the expert, the other is quoting the reasoning.

Can you show us where any such distinction is made anywhere within established academic literature concerning the application of logical fallacies?
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 5:24:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 5:22:55 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 5:11:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm going to have to side with DanT here. If you use an expert's opinion, than it's appeal to his authority, but if you use an expert's logic, it's an appeal to his logic. Simply saying that an expert agrees with you is Appeal to his Authority. If you say the experts well rounded logic and reasoning and x-amount of research agrees with you, then it's not fallacious.

One is quoting the expert, the other is quoting the reasoning.

Can you show us where any such distinction is made anywhere within established academic literature concerning the application of logical fallacies?

If, no, then your conclusion I contend spurious.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 5:36:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/14/2013 5:22:55 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/14/2013 5:11:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm going to have to side with DanT here. If you use an expert's opinion, than it's appeal to his authority, but if you use an expert's logic, it's an appeal to his logic. Simply saying that an expert agrees with you is Appeal to his Authority. If you say the experts well rounded logic and reasoning and x-amount of research agrees with you, then it's not fallacious.

One is quoting the expert, the other is quoting the reasoning.

Can you show us where any such distinction is made anywhere within established academic literature concerning the application of logical fallacies?

Can you? I don't believe you have submitted any either. Don't hold someone to a burden you haven't held yourself here.

Appeal to Authority is to appeal to the expert himself. Appealing to his logic isn't appealing to him.

If Expert A says Opinion X, then appealing to A or X is the same thing... Appealing to the Expert.

If Expert B says Opinion X is true because of Reason Y, and you quote Reason Y, then you aren't appealing to an expert to prove Opinion X, but to qualified reasoning to prove Opinion X.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2013 5:39:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The thing is generalized as Appeal to Authority... But we aren't thinking about that. We are discussing the actual fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Unless you'd like to move the goalposts from the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority to the generalized appeal.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --