Who is the most over-rated president of all-time?

[Artevelde]

(a) I am liberal, so I say Ronald Reagan.
(b) I am conservative, so I say FDR.

While in reality both FDR and Reagan were among history's top Presidents.

 

[Artevelde]

Yes, appeal to authority can be a fallacy,

It is, because you are not making a case, you are merely insisting that it is so because someone else said so.

Yes that is how one uses argument by authority. It is when the authority is not, or the wrong type of authority that it becomes fallacious. Or as one book I have on logic says, "When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgement, we commit no fallacy." In this case a couple of hundred experts came to the conclusion that FDR was America's greatest president.

Actually for most of the past decades historians have ranked Abraham Lincoln (quite rightly) as America's greatest President.
In the sixties and seventies historians ranked Eisenhower abysmally low. By the nineties, he was considered a very good President. Truman went through various phases too.

 

[JWBooth]

(a) I am liberal, so I say Ronald Reagan.
(b) I am conservative, so I say FDR.

While in reality both FDR and Reagan were among history's top Presidents.

Especially amongst those who advocate for a large, activist government.

 

[regent]

It is, because you are not making a case, you are merely insisting that it is so because someone else said so.

Yes that is how one uses argument by authority. It is when the authority is not, or the wrong type of authority that it becomes fallacious. Or as one book I have on logic says, "When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgement, we commit no fallacy." In this case a couple of hundred experts came to the conclusion that FDR was America's greatest president.

You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.

Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?

 

[Artevelde]

Yes that is how one uses argument by authority. It is when the authority is not, or the wrong type of authority that it becomes fallacious. Or as one book I have on logic says, "When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgement, we commit no fallacy." In this case a couple of hundred experts came to the conclusion that FDR was America's greatest president.

You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.

Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?

200 historians out of how many thousands?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR

1. changed Hoovers limited Syphilis experiment program, where the subjects were all to receive treatment into a eugenicists paradise where subjects went untreated to death known as Tuskegee Experiments

2. Interred 100,000 us citizens in camps and got his SCOTUS to go along with him (Korematsu)

3. turned away Jews trying to flee Hitlers Third Reich

 

[rightwinger]

You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.

Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?

200 historians out of how many thousands?

200 out of 200 who were questioned

Do you think a poll has to question every historian to be valid?

 

[Artevelde]

Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?

200 historians out of how many thousands?

200 out of 200 who were questioned

Do you think a poll has to question every historian to be valid?

You really don't have a clue about the historical profession do you?

 

[regent]

You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.

Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?

200 historians out of how many thousands?

Only noted historians and presidential experts were asked. So how did polling the American people on FDR go? Well the people elected FDR four times, a record that will stand for some time. With the people that lived during his time and the historians since 1948 voting for him I can understand the conservative's frustration.
Perhaps their best argument, is to keep using the "historians are communist" thing. Maybe expand it to include the people that voted for him too so it would read: Historians and the greatest generation were communists. Might work?

But we must remember that historians are mostly leftists, liberals, socialists, bordering on communists.

 

[Artevelde]

Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?

200 historians out of how many thousands?

Only noted historians and presidential experts were asked. So how did polling the American people on FDR go? Well the people elected FDR four times, a record that will stand for some time. With the people that lived during his time and the historians since 1948 voting for him I can understand the conservative's frustration.
Perhaps their best argument, is to keep using the "historians are communist" thing. Maybe expand it to include the people that voted for him too so it would read: Historians and the greatest generation were communists. Might work?

But we must remember that historians are mostly leftists, liberals, socialists, bordering on communists.

Polling among American historians about US Presidents has been going on for decades and results have fluctuated wildly. If you weren't too stupid to read this thread you would know that I rank FDR as one of the top Presidents too (Abraham Lincoln outranks him for sure, and the vast majority of historians (in polss and otherwise) have always thought so. Your problem is that you are apparently unwilling to make even an effort to think for yourself. Which makes you a moron.

 

[rightwinger]

200 historians out of how many thousands?

200 out of 200 who were questioned

Do you think a poll has to question every historian to be valid?

You really don't have a clue about the historical profession do you?

You really don't have a clue about what a poll is do you?

 

[Artevelde]

200 out of 200 who were questioned

Do you think a poll has to question every historian to be valid?

You really don't have a clue about the historical profession do you?

You really don't have a clue about what a poll is do you?

I know a lot more about these polls among historians than you do.

 

[regent]

200 historians out of how many thousands?

Only noted historians and presidential experts were asked. So how did polling the American people on FDR go? Well the people elected FDR four times, a record that will stand for some time. With the people that lived during his time and the historians since 1948 voting for him I can understand the conservative's frustration.
Perhaps their best argument, is to keep using the "historians are communist" thing. Maybe expand it to include the people that voted for him too so it would read: Historians and the greatest generation were communists. Might work?

But we must remember that historians are mostly leftists, liberals, socialists, bordering on communists.

Polling among American historians about US Presidents has been going on for decades and results have fluctuated wildly. If you weren't too stupid to read this thread you would know that I rank FDR as one of the top Presidents too (Abraham Lincoln outranks him for sure, and the vast majority of historians (in polss and otherwise) have always thought so. Your problem is that you are apparently unwilling to make even an effort to think for yourself. Which makes you a moron.

By thinking for myself you really mean thinking like you. Most polls, using historians have not fluctuated wildly they remain fairly stable. As you say, FDR has been one of the top three for some time, and the latest moved him to the top. Harding has been at the bottom or close to it with little movement. Bush will probably always be a contender for failure. In a poll of 744 historians in 2006 they were asked how Bush would be rated if this was his last day as president, 24% said below average and 58% said failure. What rank did Bush get when he left the presidency. What rank will he have in 2040?

 

[Unkotare]

Yes that is how one uses argument by authority. It is when the authority is not, or the wrong type of authority that it becomes fallacious. Or as one book I have on logic says, "When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgement, we commit no fallacy." In this case a couple of hundred experts came to the conclusion that FDR was America's greatest president.

You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.

Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?

You haven't made an argument.

You're doing it again. Go try and read your book.

 

[regent]

You didn't read the sentences in your book that came before and after that quote (unless you did, and are being deliberately dishonest now). I suppose it's possible you didn't understand what was written in your book. You commit a fallacy in your appeal to authority in the way you tried to use it here, not in support of but in place of your own reasoning.

Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?

You haven't made an argument.

You're doing it again. Go try and read your book.

Well as long as you accept my conclusion that FDR is now rated as the greatest American president. Make you feel better to be on a winning side? Our next project rather than fallacies, will be premises and conclusions.

 

[Unkotare]

Either way you want to view it, the argument remains the same: over two hundred historians were questioned and they declared FDR America's greatest president. Are you able to respond to the argument or not?

You haven't made an argument.

You're doing it again. Go try and read your book.

Well as long as you accept my conclusion .

Stop right there. YOU haven't made a conclusion you can claim as your own. You have only parroted the conclusion of others. Are you sure you ever opened a book of logic? Show me your reasoning without appeal to authority and maybe we can talk about YOUR conclusion.

 

[regent]

You haven't made an argument.

You're doing it again. Go try and read your book.

Well as long as you accept my conclusion .

Stop right there. YOU haven't made a conclusion you can claim as your own. You have only parroted the conclusion of others. Are you sure you ever opened a book of logic? Show me your reasoning without appeal to authority and maybe we can talk about YOUR conclusion.

Are you trying to say that two parties cannot have the same conclusion? I have to tell you that I was flattered that the 238 historians came to the same conclusion that I have had for some years now. It is like they were not just agreeing with me but adding some valuable scholarship to my conclusion. I also have some conclusions about the worst American presidents and I'll be danged if those scholars don't agree there too. I have some conclusions on worst generals, worst scandals, worst military engagements, worst economic period and so forth. But as for submitting to demands for my evidence, my book on logic says that is my decision, unless supenoenaed.

 

[Unkotare]

Well as long as you accept my conclusion .

Stop right there. YOU haven't made a conclusion you can claim as your own. You have only parroted the conclusion of others. Are you sure you ever opened a book of logic? Show me your reasoning without appeal to authority and maybe we can talk about YOUR conclusion.

Are you trying to say that two parties cannot have the same conclusion?

Did you ever take a math test in high school? Show me your work. How did YOU reach the conclusion in question?

 

[Unkotare]

Oh, and you need a new book.

 

[Artevelde]

Only noted historians and presidential experts were asked. So how did polling the American people on FDR go? Well the people elected FDR four times, a record that will stand for some time. With the people that lived during his time and the historians since 1948 voting for him I can understand the conservative's frustration.
Perhaps their best argument, is to keep using the "historians are communist" thing. Maybe expand it to include the people that voted for him too so it would read: Historians and the greatest generation were communists. Might work?

But we must remember that historians are mostly leftists, liberals, socialists, bordering on communists.

Polling among American historians about US Presidents has been going on for decades and results have fluctuated wildly. If you weren't too stupid to read this thread you would know that I rank FDR as one of the top Presidents too (Abraham Lincoln outranks him for sure, and the vast majority of historians (in polss and otherwise) have always thought so. Your problem is that you are apparently unwilling to make even an effort to think for yourself. Which makes you a moron.

By thinking for myself you really mean thinking like you. Most polls, using historians have not fluctuated wildly they remain fairly stable. As you say, FDR has been one of the top three for some time, and the latest moved him to the top. Harding has been at the bottom or close to it with little movement. Bush will probably always be a contender for failure. In a poll of 744 historians in 2006 they were asked how Bush would be rated if this was his last day as president, 24% said below average and 58% said failure. What rank did Bush get when he left the presidency. What rank will he have in 2040?

Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan used to rank near the bottom before moving up very high.

And by thinking for yourself I mean exactly that. Earlier in this thread you explicitely stated that you just relied on this poll (which is one of many, by the way, and only polls a tiny number of historians).