14-03-2010, 02:06 AM
Well, you are talking about at least two fallacies. One is know as the appeal to popular sentiments. This is the fallacy of assuming that, just because an opinion is widespread, therefore it must be true. Most Americans believe we went to the moon but, as you and I are aware, the evidence tends to discount that.
The other is the appeal to authority. There are two forms, one of which is fallacious, the other not. Appealing to Einstein on relativity is non-fallacious, since he is an authority on that subject. Appealing to Einstein on politics, however, would generally be viewed as fallacious, since he is not an authority on politics.
Neither fallacy was being committed here. I was not suggesting that because Judyth is supported by this group, it is therefore established that she is authentic. Indeed, I presume that more students of JFK doubt that she is authentic than support her authenticity, so the argument would work the other way around.
Nor am I suggesting that, just because certain persons--Jim Marrs, Nigel Turner, Edward Haslam, and I, for example--support her that it must be the case that she is "the real deal". I was simply observing that there is a fairly substantial group of those who are students of the case who do support her and believe in her.
The point I was making is that, if you are going to assume that there were "two Oswalds" and condemn Judyth for not believing that--when there is no good reason why she should--then since you on that basis have concluded she is not "the real deal", you might as well dismiss the rest of us as well.
I am trying to get across that judging the beliefs of others based upon your own research--in relation to WHAT YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BELIEVE--is a fallacious methodology. IF we were all using the same evidence and the same alternative hypotheses and the same rules of reasoning, THEN we should converge.
But some, such as Judyth, are first and foremost WITNESSES, even though she has proven to be very adept at RESEARCH. Her beliefs about Lee Oswald are based upon her (presumptive) personal experience and there is no reason to dismiss her on the grounds that YOU BELIEVE that there were "two Oswalds".
And seeing that Greg Burnham has made my point perhaps even more concisely than have I, I would add, if my explanation does not convince you, my friend, then check out Monk's, because he put it about as clearly and as concisely as it could be explained--even by a professor of logic and critical thinking! Good post, Monk! Thanks.
[quote name='Jack White' post='186750' date='Mar 14 2010, 01:40 AM']
Were Jim to respond to his own posting, I am sure he would say something like:
"Argument from Consensus
Argumentum ad Numerum
Category:
Fallacies of Relevance > Appeal to Authority
Explanation:
This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it and takes the general form:
1. When most people agree on a claim about subject S, the claim is true (normally an unstated premise). Claim X is one which most people agree on. Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy can take on the direct approach, where a speaker is addressing a crowd and makes a deliberate attempt to excite their emotions and passions in an attempt to get them to accept what he is saying. What we see here is the development of a sort of "mob mentality" — people go along with what they hear because they experience others also going along with it. This is, obviously enough, a common tactic in political speeches.
This fallacy can also take on an indirect approach, where the speaker is, or seems to be, addressing a single person while focusing on some relationship that individual has to larger groups or crowds."
Any "appeal to authority" DEPENDS on WHO the authority is and what is their
expertise. There are many levels of expertise and knowledge. A mere popularity
poll means little.
Right, Jim?
Put another way, we might say that G. W. Bush was one of the most popular
presidents ever because he was elected president twice by a majority of
voters. But this is contrary to poll ratings, historians and public opinion.
Also, I challenge some on the list...for instance Robert Chapman, who was
anti-JVB, as I recall. Photos and names are insufficient. Each should have a
relevant statement.
I am sure that Jim did not purposely post a logical fallacy.[/quote]
The other is the appeal to authority. There are two forms, one of which is fallacious, the other not. Appealing to Einstein on relativity is non-fallacious, since he is an authority on that subject. Appealing to Einstein on politics, however, would generally be viewed as fallacious, since he is not an authority on politics.
Neither fallacy was being committed here. I was not suggesting that because Judyth is supported by this group, it is therefore established that she is authentic. Indeed, I presume that more students of JFK doubt that she is authentic than support her authenticity, so the argument would work the other way around.
Nor am I suggesting that, just because certain persons--Jim Marrs, Nigel Turner, Edward Haslam, and I, for example--support her that it must be the case that she is "the real deal". I was simply observing that there is a fairly substantial group of those who are students of the case who do support her and believe in her.
The point I was making is that, if you are going to assume that there were "two Oswalds" and condemn Judyth for not believing that--when there is no good reason why she should--then since you on that basis have concluded she is not "the real deal", you might as well dismiss the rest of us as well.
I am trying to get across that judging the beliefs of others based upon your own research--in relation to WHAT YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BELIEVE--is a fallacious methodology. IF we were all using the same evidence and the same alternative hypotheses and the same rules of reasoning, THEN we should converge.
But some, such as Judyth, are first and foremost WITNESSES, even though she has proven to be very adept at RESEARCH. Her beliefs about Lee Oswald are based upon her (presumptive) personal experience and there is no reason to dismiss her on the grounds that YOU BELIEVE that there were "two Oswalds".
And seeing that Greg Burnham has made my point perhaps even more concisely than have I, I would add, if my explanation does not convince you, my friend, then check out Monk's, because he put it about as clearly and as concisely as it could be explained--even by a professor of logic and critical thinking! Good post, Monk! Thanks.
[quote name='Jack White' post='186750' date='Mar 14 2010, 01:40 AM']
Were Jim to respond to his own posting, I am sure he would say something like:
"Argument from Consensus
Argumentum ad Numerum
Category:
Fallacies of Relevance > Appeal to Authority
Explanation:
This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it and takes the general form:
1. When most people agree on a claim about subject S, the claim is true (normally an unstated premise). Claim X is one which most people agree on. Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy can take on the direct approach, where a speaker is addressing a crowd and makes a deliberate attempt to excite their emotions and passions in an attempt to get them to accept what he is saying. What we see here is the development of a sort of "mob mentality" — people go along with what they hear because they experience others also going along with it. This is, obviously enough, a common tactic in political speeches.
This fallacy can also take on an indirect approach, where the speaker is, or seems to be, addressing a single person while focusing on some relationship that individual has to larger groups or crowds."
Any "appeal to authority" DEPENDS on WHO the authority is and what is their
expertise. There are many levels of expertise and knowledge. A mere popularity
poll means little.
Right, Jim?
Put another way, we might say that G. W. Bush was one of the most popular
presidents ever because he was elected president twice by a majority of
voters. But this is contrary to poll ratings, historians and public opinion.
Also, I challenge some on the list...for instance Robert Chapman, who was
anti-JVB, as I recall. Photos and names are insufficient. Each should have a
relevant statement.
I am sure that Jim did not purposely post a logical fallacy.[/quote]