Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Maybe you're right. Maybe it's the rest of the world that's all wrong.
You are not making sense. You cut and pasted from the appeal to authority article from wikipedia, prefacing it with the statement "Pot, Kettle, Black,: as though you were trying to suggest that I was guilty of the same logical fallacy. You have not demonstrated where I have done this..
Given that channel is mostly religious apologetics videos, I think it's safe to say that the people making these videos do not have the necessary scientific qualifications to be a valid authority on QM.
I'm sorry. I presumed that you were aware to what you wrote; and that you were paying attention to our conversation.
So what is your point?
Are you suggesting that me saying, "A religious apologetics YouTube channel isn't an authority on science," is an appeal to authority fallacy?
How do you figure that?
Like I said, I do not think you actually understand what logical fallacies are.
Maybe this source will explain it in a way that you can more easily comprehend:
Appeal to Authority Definition
In an appeal to authority, also known as an argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), it is argued that something is true, because someone of authority (like an expert) says it is true.
The structure of the fallacy looks like this:
ex. The queen says the earth is flat, the queen knows all, so the Earth must be flat.
- Smith says X is true
- Smith is an expert
- So X must be true
In other words, someone claims they are right, because an expert says so. And because the expert says so, it must be true. This is defective induction because no expert is perfect. An expert is never 100% right, all the time.
There is nothing wrong with arguing that what an expert says is true. It however becomes fallacious when arguing that the expert is exempt from criticism & incapable of making mistakes.
Appealing to authority is frequent in common discourse where providing complete evidence is rarely possible, and in many cases is a weak form of evidence rather than a logical fallacy.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion (Latin: Ignoratio elenchi), where one argues an irrelevant point to try to prove the point of an issue. When arguing, it is always best to address an issue as directly as possible, rather than rely on or quote an expert.
Appeal To Authority Breakdown
Like I said, pot meet kettle.
Okay, I feel I need to explain to you that giving me a definition of a logical fallacy does not actually show me where I committed that fallacy.
Me criticising the video you posted is not an appeal to authority, because the youtube channel in question is not run by people who are scientists.
If anything, you are the one committing the fallacy because you are presenting the channel as an authority when there is no good reason to think they are such an authority.
So, let me ask again. Show me specifically where I committed this fallacy.
GR served to explain flaws in Newtonian Physics. QM resulted to explain flaws in GR. I once read that Einstein realized that his work was flawed shortly before, or shortly after he released it.
The Youtube Video presents the work of scientific authority. I mean really?! That's like saying that when scientific text books, written by PhD's, are published; that they are not valid; because the publisher doesn't have a PhD in that field? The fallacies continue.
See post #22
See post #24
The Youtube Video presents the work of scientific authority. I mean really?! That's like saying that when scientific text books, written by PhD's, are published; that they are not valid; because the publisher doesn't have a PhD in that field? The fallacies continue.
See post #22
I have no idea about the flaws you claim Einstein "realized".
"Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential.11" http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/On ... imesNR.pdf
"Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it." LEE SMOLIN -- EINSTEIN'S LEGACY--WHERE ARE THE "EINSTEINIANS"? -- LOGOS 4.3 SUMMER 2005
No.
GR (general relativity) resulted from the generalization of special relativity (SR) to non-inertial (accelerating) reference frames. [SR only applied to inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames.] It gave an alternative understanding of gravity related to space curvature rather than as a force between bodies.
And is this a flaw in Newtonian physics that GR corrected, ior is it a flaw in GR that QM corrected?
In other words, you are not qualified to refute the argument.Of course, if you show me that the creator of that video has relevant scientific qualifications, I will be happy to admit you are correct and retract my statement.
"Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential.11" http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/On ... imesNR.pdf
"Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it." LEE SMOLIN -- EINSTEIN'S LEGACY--WHERE ARE THE "EINSTEINIANS"? -- LOGOS 4.3 SUMMER 2005
In other words, you are not qualified to refute the argument.
In other words, you are not qualified to refute the argument.
No?
So in other words SR served to explain the flaws in Newtons laws in respect to high gravitational fields; or "GR (SR) served to explain flaws in Newtonian Physics?"
Am I missing something; or are you splitting hairs?
Throwing out claims I am committing logical fallacies while demonstrating that you don't actually understand how those fallacies work?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?