Palmer: Two Items on Joseph Smith and Early Mormon Polygamy

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, mikwut.

I was going to point out to Themis that appeals to authority are not always, and perhaps even not commonly, fallacious. (It would be a very strange world if they were.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Advertising often uses a kind of implicit authority fallacy, when it dresses actors up in white lab coats to talk about "male enhancement" pills, for example, or where it suggests that we should buy XYZ Toothpaste because some famous quarterback uses it.

But surely it isn't fallacious to point out that, say, "Meter reader Tommy Lee McNutt has published a new bestseller attributing the fall of Rome to a massive outbreak of stomach flu, but, after interviewing more than fifty professional historians of Rome at the recent international conference on 'Why Rome Fell,' I can report that every single one of them described his book with some variation of the phrase '%$@*&$ nonsense,'" and to conclude that his book doesn't seem to represent an insider's take on the consensus of scholars in the field.

If there were no merit whatever in seeking out authorities on various subjects, we wouldn't go to mechanics, read books, consult book and movie reviews, seek advice from lawyers, make doctor appointments, attend school, hold congressional hearings, have expert witnesses in courtrooms, or study science.

[_mikwut]

Hello Dr. Petersen,

There is certainly a sociology and psychology in effect. I would say it is very similar to the new atheists focus on extreme fundamentalist type of thinking. If this incorrect thinking can be displayed as the "proper" understanding then the moderates, the thinkers the thoughtful (what I consider majority) can just be called liars, and bingo no real substantive dialogue or thinking takes place and at the same time the extreme positions bolster each others extreme positions.

My sociology and psychology are two of my weaker subjects, but Peter Berger called these "plausibility structures" which get erected by simple discussion among people and passed through society. The board certainly displays this kind herd mentality.

best Dan, mikwut

[_Themis]

Themis,

You tell Dr. Petersen that he has made what can only be construed as a fallacious appeal to authority. He tells you to look it up because you are wrong. You post again insisting that he is wrong.

I was again to harsh and for that I apologize. Heat of the moment I guess.

An appeal to authority is fallacious when the authority referred to is not actually an authority on the matter.

While this is correct, it is not limited to it. I see Dan has linked to wiki. Pay attention to the very first part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Secondly, YOU are guilty of an appeal to authority by appealing to this message boards members who are not an actual authority on the matter.

I may have but don't remember where I did.

I am thoroughly convinced that members of this board that for some unknown reason (other than many lacks) have developed credence with other posters, mostly for posting a long time or having an ability to be clever and humorous, and through snarky disrespect and insults have poisoned the well with Dr. Petersen and that foolish virus then spreads unthinkingly. He is not anonymous. He is a bona fide academic scholar. He is a brilliant writer. He is extremely well read and he is extremely well educated. I don't care if someone disagrees with his religious beliefs (I have my disagreements, most people disagree somewhere about religious beliefs) but they would be fools of the highest order to disrepect his education and intelligence in these ways. If he told me I was wrong on a simple matter of logic I would at least not have the temerity to fail to look it up.

I do have a lot of respect for Dan, even though we do have our differences and sometimes I may say things in the heat of the moment that are incorrect.