Kimpatsu said:Ah, argument from authority; gotta love it.![]()
And again.
And yet again.
And do you know what? They're all wrong... or, more accurately, incomplete.
When I was studying translation, our J-to-E professor told us that you cannot merely meekly accept the dictionary edfinition; pointing to all of us he declared, "The buck stops here". Nowhere is that more evident than when translating contracts, as in Japanese the various parties are referred to by the Japanese "ABC" system, namely "Ko-otsu-hei..." In translating, a good professional will render this not as the dictionary says (i.e., "ABC..."), but according to context. So, in a tenancy agreement, Ko and Otsu will become the landlord and tenant, whereas in a bank loan agreement, Ko and Otsu will become the lender and borrower. But as the dictionary doesn't recommend this, you'd prefer all contracts to universally refer to the parties as A and B, right...?
Attempting to redefine the English language to justify your viewpoint is utterly specious. Citing standard dictionary definitions of a word in a debate about the usage of that word is hardly an appeal to authority - it's pointing to a fact. Citing a famous or influential person's viewpoint as supportive of your position is, however, an appeal to authority.
Even citing your professor is an appeal to authority. What's wrong? Can't you provide any proof of your position?
Kimpatsu said:
If that's the number of people who believe in a varient of the Great Juju in the Sky, then yes, I do consider them to be whacko. As I quoted, I have no confidence in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
Well, thank goodness we have you to set us all straight, then. Of course, you're the one who claims that one must have scientific support for a position in order to not be a whacko. So far, no support is showing... so I'd say you're a whacko, just like the rest of us.
Kimpatsu said:
I'll rephrase: with the exception of Gallileo, everyone thought the world was flat.
And you would still be wrong. Galileo was very popular in parts of Europe, and was actually invited to Venice to escape persecution from the Church. His beliefs and writings remained one of the core educations for the so-called "Renaissance Man" of the period, and - in spite of his forced recantation - Galileo's writings were a major thorn in the side of the Church for centuries as it steadily undermined the Church-endorsed Ptolemaic viewpoint of the Earth being the center of the universe.
Galileo actually drew HIS inspiration from Copernicus, but went further by writing books and providing proof (via telescope) that the Copernicus model was indeed, correct. Galileo's numerous followers continued to publish his banned book and teach in secular universities wherever they existed.
Ya gotta do your research if you want to challenge me on this stuff.
Kimpatsu said:
I never said anything about the moderators being whacko. On these boards, they are, after all, skeptics.
Oh? Really? Gee. Best change your password, then, because someone logged in as you and wrote:
Kimpatsu said:
It seems to me the reason is because the moderators share those whacko beleifs, such as the existence of gods, the existence of chi, paranormal powers, etc.
Kimpatsu said:
See The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore and Viruses of the Mind by Richard Dawkins.
Or will you regard these as appeals to authority as well?
Great books! I've read them, and enjoyed them, and find that I agree with a lot of what's written in them. Of course, those books aren't scientific proof, which is what you demand be presented in order to not be a whacko.
And yes, that's an appeal to authority , or argumentum ad verecundiam.
Got proof?
