this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
1718 points (98.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
6245 readers
3395 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's what I wanted to say. I was just trying to clarify that the "authority" in the "appeal to authority" doesn't mean just someone who has for example political power, some government ministry or something like that but it can be an "authority in the field" or "authority in the subject" which usually comes through their expertise.
It just sounds like you're describing what I've said earlier. It's not logical proof in itself but can support it. Not sure where we disagree.
You are referring to this particular case often in these messages and I think I need to clarify that I was just talking in general terms, trying to note that the authority in question can have genuine expertise. It's just not logical proof in itself, which is why (some) consider it a fallacy if it used that way. Again, not speaking specifically of this case with Musk's heiling.
That's the thing though, It very well can be and often is just a government minister without experience. The Authority in appeal to authority doesn't dictate whether something is fallacious. Its whether or not utilizing their authority as evidence is logical or not.
The example on Wikipedia isn't a fallacy because he was an authority/expert. It was that using personal testimony isn't how you logically determine scientific fact.
Because you can't logically support proof with a logical fallacy. Meaning that expert testimony that logically supports an assertion is not a logical fallacy.
I'm not sure what's happening. You're repeating what I've been saying the whole time, again. What's going on?
I don't think you understand there's a difference between scientific claims and a normal claim. You don't need to provide empirical evidence to make a normal claim on a social media site that limits characters.
One can rationally assume that a person who has taught classes on Nazi could provide additional sources if asked. Since we can't ask him questions or haven't bothered to, at most you could claim hearsay. However, it's not outside reason to make that claim within the context that social media allows you to respond to rebuttals.