I am just wondering, can you explain to me the difference between legitimate and illegitimate appeals to authority?
Whether it's someone, be they alleged expert or not, they can only give an opinion, (and yet you site them as a back up source), I'm sorry that is an appeal to authority.
First of all, if you think that my suggestion is an illegitimate appeal to authority then I suggest you visit the Nizkor project where under the heading 'fallacy: appeal to authority' there is a list of six criteria that must be met for an appeal to an authority to be justified - simply point out which of the six criteria my source fails to meet.
I find it interesting that you would balk at reading the article that I suggested (an article on a reputable website written by a competent author) by claiming that I am just referring you to 'another opinion' and that I am using an 'appeal to authority'. I'm not unwilling to accept an idea if it is something tangible, and not merely your opinion from a different source. All you did was supply a more authoritarian version of your opinion hence the appeal to authority. You need to understand that.
The person you choose to link too wasn't an authority as he could not possibly be as already stated in my previous post. Thus he failed on all six of your nizkor criteria. Unless you can show how he passed that is.
As they cannot possibly be an expert on the imaginary/supernatural, because the supernatural would have to be proven before there could be any expert on it.You know, this is an interesting concept that you have just introduced - one cannot be an expert about something until it is proven. Albert Einstein died in 1955, but before he died he did a tremendous amount of work in the field of general relativity. In fact, he proposed a test whereby the validity of his theory could be proven: measure the precession of the perihelion of mercury and if the measurements obtained match those predicted by his theory, general relativity would be 'proven'. The interesting thing is that as time has gone on scientists have developed more and more accurate means of making this measurement, meaning that today the theory of general relativity is proven with greater certainty than it was in 1955. And now we see the true genius of Einstein, despite the fact that he has been dead for more than 60 years he has found a way to continue to increase his expertise even from the grave
Strawman, didn't say one cannot be an expert about something until it is proven. What I said was one cannot possibly be an expert on the imaginary/supernatural, because the supernatural would have to be proven before there could be any expert on it. Where can a person find facts about the supernatural to base a theory on?
They should worry you because they directly illustrate how people can easily be mistaken in the empirical observations that they make thereby undercutting the supposed reliability of the scientific method which I am assuming you think is the only way to actually gain knowledge.
I do wonder, however, If you have completely explored his website, because anyone who has knows that most of videos (e.g. color changing card trick, the psychological card trick, the mirror, etc...) question our ability to make accurate empirical observations rather than questioning the reliability of rational introspection - don't the conclusions of his videos worry you a bit?No! Why would they?
No it doesn't bother me, as I and anybody who wishes to know the truth will seek several sources, and would Filch proof it, I or they would never only rely on there own perception. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/
You should have realized that, when you were talking about Einsteins theory. Science is empirical, nobody can be an expert until they can empirically prove there assertions, which Einstein could.