birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 He's read the authority's CV? Isn't that enough? when all else fails attack the person not the argument. alternatively, obfuscate. well done. true to form.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 when all else fails attack the person not the argument. alternatively, obfuscate. well done. true to form. Are you suggesting you've read more of the authors work? Or is it true you've only read the CV and the article he wrote?
birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Disagreement with me has nothing to do with it. I know how a real historian would treat any historical item, and it is most assuredly not "take it down" or "remove it from the public consciousness", or any other intellectually inferior approach. thus we now have at least 3 novel ppp based definitions. "historian", "appeal to authority" and "expert". perhaps you all should publish your own dictionary. Edited January 12, 2016 by birdog1960
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 apparently you read none of the references I linked re the definition of argument to authority. but go ahead. make up your own definitions and argue based on them. it's what you do. too bad you're not good at it. Apparently you failed to notice that even your argument about "argument to authority" was an argument to authority. The epistemological term for that is "bull ****." Let me explain it to you this way: with respect to Cecil Rhodes, no one's arguing with you. For the sole reason that you're asking everyone to argue not with you, but with David Olusoga. But he's not here to argue with. THAT - requiring people to debate a non-present third party instead of yourself - is an argument to authority. And the reason your shallow, stupid, and fallacious arguments are the topic of discussion is because it is impossible to discuss a topic with someone who is stupid, shallow, and fallacious.
birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Are you suggesting you've read more of the authors work? Or is it true you've only read the CV and the article he wrote? ah, let's add another qualifier to the ppp definition of expert: "can only be identified by others that have read his/her works". Apparently you failed to notice that even your argument about "argument to authority" was an argument to authority. The epistemological term for that is "bull ****." Let me explain it to you this way: with respect to Cecil Rhodes, no one's arguing with you. For the sole reason that you're asking everyone to argue not with you, but with David Olusoga. But he's not here to argue with. THAT - requiring people to debate a non-present third party instead of yourself - is an argument to authority. And the reason your shallow, stupid, and fallacious arguments are the topic of discussion is because it is impossible to discuss a topic with someone who is stupid, shallow, and fallacious. and yet another condition to the definition of "appeal tio authority". will your new dictionary have footnotes? and I didn't fail to notice. that was the point. definitions are made by authorities over time. some have very long histories, others short but all we're agreed upon or set forth by experts and therefore carry the meanings they do. without authority, there are no definitions. Edited January 12, 2016 by birdog1960
OCinBuffalo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Case in point: If we are to believe that there are REAL Muslims, and that the people above are not, then the history of the Hagia Sophia bolsters that claim. For the ignorant... The REAL Muslims back in the day did not destroy the Christian monument. They did not remove it, even though it was highly offensive to them. No. The REAL Muslims valued history, and items of historical significance. They converted it to a Mosque. Today, it's a museum. That's because Turkey is a REAL Muslim country. Meanwhile, we have the non-Real Muslims behaving above....as all totalitarians do. Perhaps birdog should ask himself which side he wants to choose? The enlighted side which cares for historical items, or, the totalitarian(in this case totalitarian PC) side, which wants to destroy anything they find offensive?
Deranged Rhino Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 ah, let's add another qualifier to the ppp definition of expert: "can only be identified by others that have read his/her works". Not what I said (try to pay attention, I know nuance isn't your strong suit), I asked if you have read his other works. It's an appropriate question considering you're lauding him as an expert based entirely on his resume rather than the content of his work. \ Isn't it awfully shortsighted to call someone an expert when you're unfamiliar with their work and views outside of an opinion piece?
OCinBuffalo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Anybody want to give the U/O on how many pages it's going to take birdog to acknowledge that my idea: add another monument alongside Forrest's that commemorates those who fought against him... ...is infinitely superior to this idiot's idea that we should take away historical items, because we can't learn from them?
birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Not what I said (try to pay attention, I know nuance isn't your strong suit), I asked if you have read his other works. It's an appropriate question considering you're lauding him as an expert based entirely on his resume rather than the content of his work. \ Isn't it awfully shortsighted to call someone an expert when you're unfamiliar with their work and views outside of an opinion piece? don't accept the premise. I haven't read Milton friedman's unabridged works on economics yet he is widely lauded as an expert and has the repsect, if not agreement of others in his field that are widely considered experts. I feel confident calling him an expert based on any standard definition. do you not? but please, let's obfuscate just a bit more...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 don't accept the premise. I haven't read Milton friedman's unabridged works on economics yet he is widely lauded as an expert and has the repsect, if not agreement of others in his field that are widely considered experts. I feel confident calling him an expert based on any standard definition. do you not? but please, let's obfuscate just a bit more... You don't accept the premise that in order to have a valid opinion on the material you must first read the material?
birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 You don't accept the premise that in order to have a valid opinion on the material you must first read the material? nope. here's the definition: Full Definition of expert 1 obsolete : experienced 2 : having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience. this doesn't require reading works. do I need my it or electrician expert at work to publish and then I read his works before he can be considered an expert?
OCinBuffalo Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Simplest terms possible: The Forrest momunent's very existence can be used as a starting point for explaining the necessity and justification of the Reconstruction policy. You take the monument down, and everything becomes abstraction. Instead, you show a kid the monument, describe that it was put up AFTER the South had already lost the war, and the entire picture becomes instantly clear: the South's attitudes and indeed it's societal realities, required the Reconstruction policies to be what they were. Then you move on to the KKK. It's not that F'ing hard to create a month's worth of lesson plans...all predicated on a visit to the Forrest monument. But, I'm supposed to believe that monuments have no historical education value...because some guy said so? Yeah, because the only reason 24 million people visit the Washington Monument each year is so they can aimlessly walk around and not learn anything.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 nope. here's the definition: Full Definition of expert 1 obsolete : experienced 2 : having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience. this doesn't require reading works. do I need my it or electrician expert at work to publish and then I read his works before he can be considered an expert? Reading the material you're commenting on and debating is ABSOLUTELY necessary if you're going to have an informed opinion. Otherwise you're just regurgitating information without vetting it. In other words, you're outsourcing your own filtration system which is dangerous because you're letting other people determine your outlook on the world and history. This is EXACTLY why destroying historically important artifacts, monuments, and pieces of history -- even uncomfortable ones -- is anti-liberal. It's the antithesis of everything a true liberal should believe.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) don't accept the premise. I haven't read Milton friedman's unabridged works on economics yet he is widely lauded as an expert and has the repsect, if not agreement of others in his field that are widely considered experts. I feel confident calling him an expert based on any standard definition. do you not? but please, let's obfuscate just a bit more... I am absolutely !@#$ing speechless... How can you possibly justify taking hard line stances either for or against anything, if you haven't actually studied the material yourself? How?!? Your entire intellectual philosophy is nothing more than a mismatched tapestry of others peoples opinions, to which you grant total authority, based on how you feel about how other people feel about their work. That is astounding... Edited January 12, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker
birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Reading the material you're commenting on and debating is ABSOLUTELY necessary if you're going to have an informed opinion. Otherwise you're just regurgitating information without vetting it. In other words, you're outsourcing your own filtration system which is dangerous because you're letting other people determine your outlook on the world and history. This is EXACTLY why destroying historically important artifacts, monuments, and pieces of history -- even uncomfortable ones -- is anti-liberal. It's the antithesis of everything a true liberal should believe. it is not necessary in order to label someone an expert. stop moving the goal posts. that was the question.
B-Man Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 I have to respond here: We have posts by, Birddog, Deranged Rhino, OCin Buffalo and Take you to Tasker all in a row !! If DCTom posts next, its one of the Seven Signs of the Apocalypse.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 it is not necessary in order to label someone an expert. stop moving the goal posts. that was the question. No it was not the question. I asked YOU if YOU had read his material. You have not yet you're claiming him as an expert BECAUSE OF WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY (other people you also have not read). Can't you see how that's a very dangerous and very slippery slope to intellectual sloth? You're a doctor, right? Let's say a patient comes to you for a second opinion and is complaining of pains in his chest. Would you examine the patient first before rendering your diagnosis or would you simply re-read his first opinion (because the first doctor is clearly an expert, just look at his CV!) and go with that? Of course you would examine the patient yourself first, right? I have to respond here: We have posts by, Birddog, Deranged Rhino, OCin Buffalo and Take you to Tasker all in a row !! If DCTom posts next, its one of the Seven Signs of the Apocalypse.
3rdnlng Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 I have to respond here: We have posts by, Birddog, Deranged Rhino, OCin Buffalo and Take you to Tasker all in a row !! If DCTom posts next, its one of the Seven Signs of the Apocalypse. I'm not ready for it, thus I am posting.
birdog1960 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 No it was not the question. I asked YOU if YOU had read his material. You have not yet you're claiming him as an expert BECAUSE OF WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY (other people you also have not read). Can't you see how that's a very dangerous and very slippery slope to intellectual sloth? You're a doctor, right? Let's say a patient comes to you for a second opinion and is complaining of pains in his chest. Would you examine the patient first before rendering your diagnosis or would you simply re-read his first opinion (because the first doctor is clearly an expert, just look at his CV!) and go with that? Of course you would examine the patient yourself first, right? how does that patient know that i'm an expert? by reading my puiblications? i'll bet less than o.1% of them have done that. by my board certification? maybre 10% are aware of that. nope, it's by reputation. and it's a legitimate measure because my reputation in part is based on those other things that other experts are well aware of.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 how does that patient know that i'm an expert? by reading my puiblications? i'll bet less than o.1% of them have done that. by my board certification? maybre 10% are aware of that. nope, it's by reputation. and it's a legitimate measure because my reputation in part is based on those other things that other experts are well aware of. You didn't answer the question(s)... at all. Now who's obfuscating? I didn't ask about the patient, I asked about YOU. Would you examine him yourself or would you rely upon the previous diagnoses of the doctors he saw before you?
Recommended Posts