Re: hard vs soft evidence; appeal to authority, etc.

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

        Indeed, a thoughtful piece.
        There is another aspect to appeal to authority - the hearsay
problem.  This problem oftn arises on lists, such as this one; I call it
argument by homework assignment and it usually occurs in a statement like,
"If you would only read Cheops on Pyramids, you would see that I am
right."

There are several problems with this kind of argument.  Here are a few:
1.  You havent told me which Cheops statement you are relying on.  I have
to read the whole book and then guess?
2. You haven't told me how you interpret what you consider the relevant
part of Cheops' argument.
3.  It is almost necessarily true that Cheops was writing in a different
context than the one that applies to our discussion.  How would Cheops
make tha argument in the present context (see #4)?
4.  Cheops is not available to answer question and defend his (her, its)
argument or your interpretation of it.
5.  If you are quoting from the book, I often cannot tell from the quote
that it is accurate and in context.

                                                Regards,
                                                                Jack


On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, John Denker wrote:

> Hi --
>
> I have re-thought, revised, expanded, and re-organized my
> note about the proper and improper uses of appeal to
> authority, credentials, et cetera.
>
> I understand it now in terms of separate scales for hard
> evidence and soft evidence.  Soft evidence is not useless,
> if it's all you've got, but hard evidence always outweighs
> soft evidence.
>
> Thanks to Tim Folkerts and other members of this group for
> helping me think more clearly about all this.
>
>    http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
                General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
                just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley