Simpsons Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Doubtful Authority

colburnclassroo...
Open captions change to closed captions during second half of video. Use of copyrighted content is protected by fair use which says that copyrighted content can be used so long as commentary is given. Definitions of logical fallacies come from Practical Argument by Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell.

[@ColburnClassroom]

Playlist: th-cam.com/video/RnMmXTVOjBY/w-d-xo.html

[@matthewbibby8921]

I find it kinda funny that he didn’t even give the worst explanation of evolution. Better than a lot of people’s understandings of it at least.

[@00MSG]

He also uses emotional manipulation at the end.

[@SEB1991SEB]

I thought that was a pretty good argument given by the Darwin actor. Even if he doesn't have a background in biology, that doesn't mean he doesn't understand his argument if he was able to articulate it like that (even if it was just memorised). Darwin himself couldn't really have given a better explanation. And how do you know Blinky wasn't the result of a random natural mutation?

[@fluffysheap]

Appeal to authority is *always* a fallacy. There is no "doubtful" weasel word.
No person's opinion is evidence of anything other than what that specific person believes.
If a person is really an authority, they should be able to produce a substantive document, a book or a scholarly article, with references to the actual evidence. Then the evidence can be evaluated on its own.
Even Einstein was wrong occasionally!

[@marksesl]

For me, appeal to authority is always a fallacy. It is only the weight of an argument that matters, not who says it.

[@M0N0T1C0L0URS]

I agree that in itself it's fallacious. However, I find myself making appeals to authority as a way to basically say "so I don't have the background required to make this claim, but this well-respected figure in the field with credentials, a good h-index, and significant contribution to the field claims that this finding is accurate." Of course there are baseless assumptions in this claim, but how else do you distinguish unreliable knowledge without diving into the evidence yourself, which, in its entirety requires spending all your time studying every scientific discipline? Though this is more to do with empirical facts rather than logical arguments. Of course a logical argument stands on its own and doesn't require any sort of authority to say it (unless you have disagreements over which modal logic version to choose from...)

[@scribblecloud]

what exactly do you mean by the weight of the argument? How do you determine that?

[@englishwithteachermark4307]

@@scribblecloud The actual evidence.

[@Inkyminkyzizwoz]

It isn't a fallacy if the authority being appealed to is qualified in the area concerned

[@CharlesGrantHarper]

Something fallacious isn't necessarily untrue. The professor/expert might be right if their logic was good and research sound, but it isn't valid logic for a third party to claim that something is true because he says it is. Fallacies are concerned with what the cause and effect are - the methodology - rather than the veracity of the outcome. An argument can be logically sound, but if it is based on an untrue premise, then it the conclusion will also be untrue. @@Inkyminkyzizwoz

[@elijahcordova5614]

Could this be considered an appeal to nature logical fallacy as well.

[@jayfreeman5117]

Thank you.

[@malvoliosf]

The argument made by the Darwin-actor is perfectly sound. Either the genetic mutation is helpful, and will endure; or it’s isn’t, and will die out.

[@battlesheep2552]

Also the fact that mutations occur in nature, and the existence of a single three eyed fish proves nothing, as it could happen purely by coincidence without the aid of nuclear contamination.

[@thiagodeandrade7081]

That is true, but it doesn’t follow that the plant is not dangerous. After all, the trunk of the elephant IS natural, but the filhos third eye might have been caused by the plant's radiation.

[@bigkkm]

Mr. Beat said to come here and say hi!

[@shapexon3322]

If an actual authority was making that wrong argument, and you appealed to it, would it still be a fallacy?

[@ColburnClassroom]

Yes as it is also a false analogy

[@horsehay]

Idk, Charles Darwin made a pretty good case in favor of Burns. Who's to say Blinky wasn't a product of natural selection?

[@timbuktu8069]

I'm not an actor but I do play one on TV.

[@Inkyminkyzizwoz]

There's a post going round about Harry Potter thanking Harry and Hermione for proving that boys and girls can simply be friends without there being anything romantic between them, but they're fictional characters and so can be whatever the author wants them to be, so aren't really 'proof' of anything. What sort of fallacy would that be, where you use something from fiction as proof of something being feasible or possible in the real world?

[@FryingMike]

nice

[@ktefccre]

🐱👍