Microblog Memes

6261 readers

2869 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

[email protected]

1729

AreWeTheBaddies.gif (slrpnk.net)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

205 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

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.

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.

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.

I'm not sure what's happening. You're repeating what I've been saying the whole time, again. What's going on?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago

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.