> Thomas Moore writes:
>
> <<Of course, this is just an argument from authority>>
>
> Don't know why you're so upset about this. That's exactly what authorities are
> for. I mean, a guy wins a Nobel Prize in chemistry, yet you toss out a
> sweeping dismissal like, "it doesn't mean he really knows what he's talking
> about." I honestly can't take that seriously.
You should take it seriously. Invoking that someone has a Nobel Prize in
_NO WAY_ qualifies a person as a expert on the subject _BEING
DISCUSSED_. If his Nobel is on AIDS research or AIDS related research,
say so. Stop being lazy and show me that this person really is qualified.
>
> The expert is presumed an expert (I always thought winning a Nobel Prize was a
> good thing), unless you're able to show precisely how he is in error, with
> some substantive argument. The easy, sweeping put-downs of Johnson of late
> have been accompanied by precisely nothing of substance [only the Priesthood
> Fallacy has been relied upon].
Nice dodge. Your argument before was the Johnson knew something because
he associated himself with who you assumed as "expert." Now you've
switched to showing whether or not he was in error, which really is the
issue. You did not defend Johnson on the basis of good arguments either,
you defended him via argument from authority. If you have a problem with
the "priesthood," don't invoke it as a defense.
Tom