CDZ Anonymous Credential Credibility

[Liminal]

Is it unethical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? When someone posting on an internet forum declares themselves an undisputed expert to gain some false credibility, aren't they violating some principle of honest debate?
Let's take for example, someone who claims to be an Ornithologist. He claims to have an advanced degree in Ornithology and extensive knowledge of all kinds of birds. He often uses this supposed knowledge to dispute the science of global climate change, claiming his education in a related field of natural science makes him the final arbiter of all such discussions. The problem is, all he seems to know about birds is that they have feathers and they can fly and sing.
Is there any such thing as an honest argument based on anonymous credentials?

 

[Liffy]

Is it unethical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? When someone posting on an internet forum declares themselves an undisputed expert to gain some false credibility, aren't they violating some principle of honest debate?
Let's take for example, someone who claims to be an Ornithologist. He claims to have an advanced degree in Ornithology and extensive knowledge of all kinds of birds. He often uses this supposed knowledge to dispute the science of global climate change, claiming his education in a related field of natural science makes him the final arbiter of all such discussions. The problem is, all he seems to know about birds is that they have feathers and they can fly and sing.
Is there any such thing as an honest argument based on anonymous credentials?

I was following you up until the last part. Anyway... I think the question that you should be asking is. It logical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? Or better. Is maintaining a claim by the argument of self proclaimed expertise logical? No.

 

[Liminal]

Is it unethical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? When someone posting on an internet forum declares themselves an undisputed expert to gain some false credibility, aren't they violating some principle of honest debate?
Let's take for example, someone who claims to be an Ornithologist. He claims to have an advanced degree in Ornithology and extensive knowledge of all kinds of birds. He often uses this supposed knowledge to dispute the science of global climate change, claiming his education in a related field of natural science makes him the final arbiter of all such discussions. The problem is, all he seems to know about birds is that they have feathers and they can fly and sing.
Is there any such thing as an honest argument based on anonymous credentials?

I was following you up until the last part. Anyway... I think the question that you should be asking is. It logical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? Or better. Is maintaining a claim by the argument of self proclaimed expertise logical? No.

No, I don't think that's the question I should be asking. Logic has little to do with making arguments on an internet forum, some people constantly make arguments based on their imagined credibility and expertise.

 

[Liffy]

Is it unethical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? When someone posting on an internet forum declares themselves an undisputed expert to gain some false credibility, aren't they violating some principle of honest debate?
Let's take for example, someone who claims to be an Ornithologist. He claims to have an advanced degree in Ornithology and extensive knowledge of all kinds of birds. He often uses this supposed knowledge to dispute the science of global climate change, claiming his education in a related field of natural science makes him the final arbiter of all such discussions. The problem is, all he seems to know about birds is that they have feathers and they can fly and sing.
Is there any such thing as an honest argument based on anonymous credentials?

I was following you up until the last part. Anyway... I think the question that you should be asking is. It logical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? Or better. Is maintaining a claim by the argument of self proclaimed expertise logical? No.

No, I don't think that's the question I should be asking. Logic has little to do with making arguments on an internet forum, some people constantly make arguments based on their imagined credibility and expertise.

When it comes to productive arguments logic is crucial. Productive arguments like debates between scientists about medicine. I must say though i am aware that logic doesn't matter TO unintelligent people who don't care about getting down to the bottom of the issue. What wins arguments unlike that kind where winning is the majority siding with a particular issue is rhetoric more than logic.

 

[Liffy]

I had to edit my post. Read it after the edit.

 

[Liminal]

Is it unethical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? When someone posting on an internet forum declares themselves an undisputed expert to gain some false credibility, aren't they violating some principle of honest debate?
Let's take for example, someone who claims to be an Ornithologist. He claims to have an advanced degree in Ornithology and extensive knowledge of all kinds of birds. He often uses this supposed knowledge to dispute the science of global climate change, claiming his education in a related field of natural science makes him the final arbiter of all such discussions. The problem is, all he seems to know about birds is that they have feathers and they can fly and sing.
Is there any such thing as an honest argument based on anonymous credentials?

I was following you up until the last part. Anyway... I think the question that you should be asking is. It logical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? Or better. Is maintaining a claim by the argument of self proclaimed expertise logical? No.

No, I don't think that's the question I should be asking. Logic has little to do with making arguments on an internet forum, some people constantly make arguments based on their imagined credibility and expertise.

When it comes to productive arguments logic is crucial. Productive arguments like debates between scientists about medicine. I must say though i am aware that logic doesn't matter TO unintelligent people who don't care about getting down to the bottom of the issue. What wins arguments unlike that kind where winning is the majority siding with a particular issue is rhetoric more than logic.

Intelligence doesn't seem to be very important either, not on an internet forum. This environment gives the least intelligent pathological liars a platform, as though they had actual credibility.

 

[Liminal]

I had to edit my post. Read it after the edit.

If more people were to edit themselves as scrupulously as you do, there might be more honest and intelligent discussion. As it is, speculation, opinions, rhetoric, and personal anecdotes are evidently the hallmarks of honest debate on an internet forum.

 

[Liffy]

So are we done or... What is this really?

 

[Liffy]

Actually I found another mistake with that same post but I think you can tell what I meant.

 

[Liminal]

So are we done or... What is this really?

I'm just a concerned citizen. An oblique response should be coming my way a little later.

 

[Liffy]

So are we done or... What is this really?

I'm just a concerned citizen. An oblique response should be coming my way a little later.

Well seeing as you know you'll be getting that kind of response I think you can guess the gist of whatever the forum has in store for you. So I still don't get the point. Rhetoric is almost always gonna win any debate anywhere. When was the last time you had a productive debate and what was it about?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is it unethical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? When someone posting on an internet forum declares themselves an undisputed expert to gain some false credibility, aren't they violating some principle of honest debate?

For example....
Jillian claims to be a lawyer; her posts give reason to wonder if she's graduated from middle school.
Dishonest? Yes. Childish? Yes.
In the end, it only embarrasses her; she either doesn't know this or does know it and doesn't care.

 

[Liminal]

So are we done or... What is this really?

I'm just a concerned citizen. An oblique response should be coming my way a little later.

Well seeing as you know you'll be getting that kind of response I think you can guess the gist of whatever the forum has in store for you. So I still don't get the point. Rhetoric is almost always gonna win any debate anywhere. When was the last time you had a productive debate and what was it about?

I believe you've put your finger precisely on the problem; rhetoric is the least compelling form of argument. Yet in an internet forum environment, it carries great weight.

 

[Liffy]

Still don't know your point of this.

 

[Liminal]

Is it unethical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? When someone posting on an internet forum declares themselves an undisputed expert to gain some false credibility, aren't they violating some principle of honest debate?

For example....
Jillian claims to be a lawyer; her posts give reason to wonder if she's graduated from middle school.
Dishonest? Yes. Childish? Yes.
In the end, it only embarrasses her; she either doesn't know this or does know it and doesn't care.

Fortunately she's not an actual lawyer or someone in any kind of position of authority. Because someone like that would probably be inclined to abuse her authority if anyone challenged the lie.

 

[Liminal]

Still don't know your point of this.

So then you must be fan of rhetoric. Sorry, did I just gore your favorite ox?

 

[Liffy]

Still don't know your point of this.

So then you must be fan of rhetoric. Sorry, did I just gore your favorite ox?

No you've just been dodging the question.

 

[Liminal]

Still don't know your point of this.

So then you must be fan of rhetoric. Sorry, did I just gore your favorite ox?

No you've just been dodging the question.

What question? Feel free to elaborate and specify.

 

[Liffy]

By the way it wasn't my intent to give you the impression that I'm employing any kind of rhetoric. But when someone comes off as a respectable debater... And then ignores questions their motives are highly suspect. And then when they go on makin the kind of post you just made its rude.

 

[Liffy]

Still don't know your point of this.

So then you must be fan of rhetoric. Sorry, did I just gore your favorite ox?

No you've just been dodging the question.

What question? Feel free to elaborate and specify.

Feel free to go through your own thread.