What I posted is are the arguments refuting your belief that there is such a thing as a valid authority. If you could refute it, you would have done that.
You don't know what you're talking about. Logic establishes where a syllogism (an argument) is correct. That's a necessary condition for reaching conclusions, but not a sufficient condition.
It's kinda funny that you would suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the field of logic. I happen to be extremely well versed in this field of study.
As for some terminology, logic is the study of reasoning. Not all logic is syllogistic in nature. In deductive logic arguments are either valid or invalid. In inductive logic arguments are correct or incorrect (more often called strength vs weakness).
Nope. You can never say proposition 'A' is true because expert 'B' says it's true. That's not a valid argument because experts are often wrong. They aren't infallible.
Whether it's smart to consult experts on matters we are ignorant about is one matter. Whether the expert's opinion on any given claim is proof that it is true or false is another matter. Experts are not infallible. Their opinion, therefore, proves nothing.
You are presenting an example of deductive reasoning. As I said, when an appeal to authority is made in a deductive argument fallacy occurs. Not the case in inductive reasoning.
And for your information, inductive logic is where you conclude that the sun will come up tomorrow because it has come up every morning in recorded history. Concluding that proposition 'A' is true because some "expert" says it's true is not an example of inductive reasoning. It's an example of a logical fallacy.
You seem to be subject to the "general to specific" myth. It's a common (dangerously common) misconception that deduction means to argue from the specific to general, while induction means to argue from the general to the specific. Even though the mechanisms of action tend to follow such patterns, ultimately such a definition is false and the relation superficial.
Deductive logic is reasoning that yields definitive conclusions when its premises are true. That is, if the premises of a deductive argument are true, and the argument form is valid, then the conclusion must be true. It is impossible for the conclusion to be false. An example is the Socrates syllogism.
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
The argument form (AAA-1) is valid, and the premises are true. Thus, the truth of the conclusion must be true and it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.
Inductive logic does not deal with such definitive conclusions. Instead it is reasoning that seeks to present a conclusion as probable, or as more probable than another conclusion. In deductive reasoning a valid argument is one where a conclusion must be true if the premises are true. However in inductive logic, rational arguments can and often do contain true premises yet false conclusions. Thus, the arguments in inductive logic are said to be correct or incorrect, or somewhat more commonly (though also somewhat inappropriately) nowadays strong or weak.
Inductive logic therefore allows certain things that would be fallacy in deductive logic. Inductive reasoning allows a speaker to offer evidence that increases probability of aun uncertain conclusion even when deductive logic might forbid the same evidence were it used to claim a certain conclusion. Whereas deductive logic rejects correlation as evidence of a conclusion, inductive logic allows properly applied correlation as a contribution to probability. Where the opinion of an expert is insufficient to establish a deductive conclusion, it adds probability to an inductive argument.
Selective crony exemption from tax requirements, delay/postponement of critical dates and in/validation of existing policy is not w/in executive purview or administrative execution of the law.
Those acts materially and substantively change the foundation and "making" of the law.
It wasn't selective. [COLOR="Red"It was for any company which offered "mini-med" plans to employees and who asked for the allowed exemption][/COLOR]. That was to help those companies adjust to the new plans, otherwise, their employees on such plans would have incurred significantly higher premiums until 2014, when ObamaCare goes into full effect.
Furthermore, Obama changed nothing in the law. This is yet another case of rightwingnuts pissing in the wind because, as usual, they are woefully misinformed by the rightwing blogosphere. In reality, companies which qualified for the exemption were give a one year extension from having to change their employees' medical coverage to a qualified plan under ObamaCare. And that extension was before ObamaCare goes into full effect next year, meaning the law was not changed. When the law goes into full effect, all companies with 50 or more employees will be bound by the law.
Antares wrote "YOU made the claim that the President can arbitrarily enforce or change the Law which carried out to its logical conclusion means he/she can do the same to ANY law....feel free to prove it liar."
That was in response to this: "Don't have to prove my assertion when the OP has been summarily dismissed for lack of obvious proof."
The reactionary brothers mix up quotes and then lie.
You guys truly roo the day every time you mess with me.
Really? Now just where would you derive such a notion? So are you saying that simply because he wrote for a publication you don't like that it somehow diminishes his knowledge of the Constitution?
Really? Now just where would you derive such a notion? So are you saying that simply because he wrote for a publication you don't like that it somehow diminishes his knowledge of the Constitution?
Really? Now just where would you derive such a notion? So are you saying that simply because he wrote for a publication you don't like that it somehow diminishes his knowledge of the Constitution?
Not quite. Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when a person references an authority's opinion as compelling evidence toward a matter outside of said authority's expertise.
Wrong. Even if the so-called authority happens to be an expert in the subject under discussion, he can still be wrong. Authorities have been proven wrong countless times throughout history.
There is no such thing as a "valid" authority when it comes to logic.
Your definition of the appeal to authority comes from some statist who wants to justify they unjustifiable, like the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Believe it or not the "argument by authority fallacy" doesn't mean the authority has to be correct only that the authority is in fact an authority on the subject. The fallacy occurs when the individual is not an authority, but used as an authority.
Not quite. Appeal to authority fallacy occurs when a person references an authority's opinion as compelling evidence toward a matter outside of said authority's expertise.
Wrong. Even if the so-called authority happens to be an expert in the subject under discussion, he can still be wrong. Authorities have been proven wrong countless times throughout history.
There is no such thing as a "valid" authority when it comes to logic.
Your definition of the appeal to authority comes from some statist who wants to justify they unjustifiable, like the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Believe it or not the "argument by authority fallacy" doesn't mean the authority has to be correct only that the authority is in fact an authority on the subject. The fallacy occurs when the individual is not an authority, but used as an authority.
The argument by authority fallacy is one in which someone who is an authority in an unrelated field is used to support a claim about another field.
For example, using an airline pilot as an authority about ObamaCare. Or a political scientist at a Liberal Arts college as an authority on Constitutional Law.
Turley was even more critical of Bush's treatment of the Constitution. And his criticisms have nothing to do with the ACA, which is the subject of this thread.
Turley was even more critical of Bush's treatment of the Constitution. And his criticisms have nothing to do with the ACA, which is the subject of this thread.
Obama has just taken the baton handed to him. The rubes who put up with Bush never spent so much as ten seconds worrying about the post-Bush inheritors of his abuses of power.
You can't stand up to liberals, because you are too weak, so that is why a true Republican like me has no trouble making you look as silly as you truly look.
Turley was even more critical of Bush's treatment of the Constitution. And his criticisms have nothing to do with the ACA, which is the subject of this thread.
Obama has just taken the baton handed to him. The rubes who put up with Bush never spent so much as ten seconds worrying about the post-Bush inheritors of his abuses of power.
Turley was even more critical of Bush's treatment of the Constitution. And his criticisms have nothing to do with the ACA, which is the subject of this thread.
Obama has just taken the baton handed to him. The rubes who put up with Bush never spent so much as ten seconds worrying about the post-Bush inheritors of his abuses of power.
.
