Natural Selection

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,618
I think it does, yes.

Now I've answered your question, you answer mine: do you know what Darwinism is?
In light of your contradictory responses with regards to Darwinism.
How does Darwinism then explain the rich diversity of life?
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280
Appeal to Authority
An argument that something must be true because someone who is generally respected says so.

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not very valid arguments but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered. As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.
Example:
You receive an Whatsapp that states "Dwayne Johnson is urgently telling people to beware of false meter readers in Johannesburg North"

#1 Dwayne Johnson is a respected person
#2 Dwayne Johnson has no knowledge of Johannesburg, nevermind JHB North
#3 The person that created this false news using Dwayne Johnson as someone generally respected, to add credence to the rest of what is being said.

However:
City Power is warning residents not to allow any person, technician or contractor onto their property without first verifying credentials with City Powers risk control unit.

#1 City Power is the expert on who should and should not be attending to on property issues
#2 City Power does employ technicians and contractors to see to issues on premises
#3 City Power has issued a reasonable means to confirm that person(s) are employed by them

<Edit for rephrase>
I am interested to know why using the knowledge of an established set of expertise in Logic/Arguments is so "impossible" as you present? @rietrot
 
Last edited:

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
15,966
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority



Example:
You receive an Whatsapp that states "Dwayne Johnson is urgently telling people to beware of false meter readers in Johannesburg North"

#1 Dwayne Johnson is a respected person
#2 Dwayne Johnson has no knowledge of Johannesburg, nevermind JHB North
#3 The person that created this false news using Dwayne Johnson as someone generally respected, to add credence to the rest of what is being said.

However:
City Power is warning residents not to allow any person, technician or contractor onto their property without first verifying credentials with City Powers risk control unit.

#1 City Power is the expert on who should and should not be attending to on property issues
#2 City Power does employ technicians and contractors to see to issues on premises
#3 City Power has issued a reasonable means to confirm that person(s) are employed by them

I don't know why you're against using the learnings of an established field of expertise @rietrot
There's a appeal to authority in the very definition of what a appeal to authority is. That's ridiculously hypocritical. Scientific concensus is the biggest appeal to authority out there. And we all know scientists can be wrong even if they agree on stuff.

I'm not against using the learnings of an established field of expertise. I'm all for it. We have to appeal to past authority to get anywhere. It's ridiculous to think each new generation has to reinvent the wheel.


Quoting a definition is an appeal to authority, and I support it, we need definitions in order to communicate, even though this one is logically flawed.
 
Last edited:

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,835
In light of your contradictory responses with regards to Darwinism.
How does Darwinism then explain the rich diversity of life?
Did you bother to read the premises of this thread? Did you see what OP wanted to discuss and analyse before getting into the meat of having a rational discussion about "Natural Selection"?

Did you then read the reference C4Cat quoted?

He asked you to define Darwinism and what it means to you. Are you prepared to let go of your fixation about details long enough to establish a base from which to discuss "Natural Selection"?

There are hundreds of views of what Darwins Theory was, and how he reached the point where he published his Theory. Darwinism has positive and negative connotations, supporters and detractors, was in favour and then out of favour and back again.

The rest of us ate asking you to table your stance, nothing more an nothing less, and like C4Cat has done show why you have that particular stance.

Op has a confusing view at the moment. He seems to support Natural Selection, but swings between three different interpretations of what it is, two of which are written in Teleological language and one that is not.
This thread is about just that. IT is NOT about anyone's preconceived ideas about evolution.

Do you even know whether you are a teleologist or not and if so why you are one?
And before you jump on me, I am not saying that is a negative trait either. I am saying it depends on your background, in what discipline you work in and your state of mind where despite having teleological leanings, you are able to step out of that box when required to do so.

I am an engineer by profession. We are all about building things and outcomes. So everything I ever did was about delivering an outcome. Engineering is a teleological discipline.

Scientists who are true Scientists strive towards NOT being teleologists because it is viewed as being too subjective. Do you accept that view?
 
Last edited:

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
8,887
In light of your contradictory responses with regards to Darwinism.
How does Darwinism then explain the rich diversity of life?
That's not how it works. I answered your question, now it's your turn to answer mine. You have to answer one before you get to ask another.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,618
There's a appeal to authority in the very definition of what a appeal to authority is. That's ridiculously hypocritical. Scientific concensus is the biggest appeal to authority out there. And we all know scientists can be wrong even if they agree on stuff.

I'm not against using the learnings of an established field of expertise. I'm all for it. We have to appeal to past authority to get anywhere. It's ridiculous to think each new generation has to reinvent the wheel.
Very well assessed.
It's the age old "bullshit baffles brains" thing.
 

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
8,887
In light of your contradictory responses with regards to Darwinism.
And by the way, there was no contradiction in my responses.
Are you saying that Darwinism does not postulate speciation - more specifically, that species do not adapt so as to become another species?
No, I didn't mention speciation or adaption in what I said
Are you then saying that Darwinism does in fact postulate that species adapt to form another species?
No, I didn't mention speciation or adaption in what I said
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280
There's a appeal to authority in the very definition of what a appeal to authority is. That's ridiculously hypocritical. Scientific concensus is the biggest appeal to authority out there. And we all know scientists can be wrong even if they agree on stuff.

I'm not against using the learnings of an established field of expertise. I'm all for it. We have to appeal to past authority to get anywhere. It's ridiculous to think each new generation has to reinvent the wheel.

Quoting a definition is an appeal to authority, and I support it, we need definitions in order to communicate, even though this one is logically flawed.
There's a major difference between and Appeal to authority and Authority. It cannot be an appeal if the subject being referenced is an established expert/field of expertise.
A definition is by default authoritative because it's authority has been established, therefore there is no appeal component to it...

Just because scientists can be wrong, does not mean they are wrong are wrong in everything. They can still be experts AND make mistakes in their field of expertise.
This does not invalidate the entire field of expertise, but only the specific thing they are currently wrong about.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,835
There's a appeal to authority in the very definition of what a appeal to authority is. That's ridiculously hypocritical. Scientific concensus is the biggest appeal to authority out there. And we all know scientists can be wrong even if they agree on stuff.

I'm not against using the learnings of an established field of expertise. I'm all for it. We have to appeal to past authority to get anywhere. It's ridiculous to think each new generation has to reinvent the wheel.


Quoting a definition is an appeal to authority, and I support it, we need definitions in order to communicate, even though this one is logically flawed.
What is logically flawed? The very fact of the Fallacy Fallacy? It is a well-documented aspect of debate. One has to understand it before you can dare to criticise it. It is not hypocritical at all, it is the very essence of being able to debate and apply logical thing correctly without falling into the various illogical debating stances.

Ponderer has demonstrated over and over again, that his mind is made up - the TOE is false, a good story, rubbish and therefore not worth taking into account. Yet he comes back time and again as if he is looking for support in the very thing he has written off to back his views, instead of stating for us and more importantly for himself, why he believes what he does.

His views will never impact on the thousand who do take the TOE for what it is. he has no chance anyway IF he refuses to explain his reasons, quote references and stop using all the negative argument stances he takes.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,618
That's not how it works. I answered your question, now it's your turn to answer mine. You have to answer one before you get to ask another.
I am going to hold you to your promise that you will respond to the question once I responded to yours.

The answer to your question is Yes.

Your turn.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
83,171
I am going to hold you to your promise that you will respond to the question once I responded to yours.

The answer to your question is Yes.

Your turn.
You aren't supposed to lie when answering a question.. its piss poor form.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,618
There's a major difference between and Appeal to authority and Authority. It cannot be an appeal if the subject being referenced is an established expert/field of expertise.
A definition is by default authoritative because it's authority has been established, therefore there is no appeal component to it...

Just because scientists can be wrong, does not mean they are wrong are wrong in everything. They can still be experts AND make mistakes in their field of expertise.
This does not invalidate the entire field of expertise, but only the specific thing they are currently wrong about.
Your reasoning is circular.
You have done nothing to refute the assessment (which was absolutely devastating).
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
15,966
There's a major difference between and Appeal to authority and Authority. It cannot be an appeal if the subject being referenced is an established expert/field of expertise.
A definition is by default authoritative because it's authority has been established, therefore there is no appeal component to it...

Just because scientists can be wrong, does not mean they are wrong are wrong in everything. They can still be experts AND make mistakes in their field of expertise.
This does not invalidate the entire field of expertise, but only the specific thing they are currently wrong about.
Yes you almost get it. Just like a logical falicy doesn't invalidate someone's argument just by being named. An appeal to authority doesn't make the authority or the person using that wrong. It actually adds more weight to an argument.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,618
And by the way, there was no contradiction in my responses.

No, I didn't mention speciation or adaption in what I said

No, I didn't mention speciation or adaption in what I said
You have not yet explained why you think that Darwinism explains the rich diversity of life.
 

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
8,887
I am going to hold you to your promise that you will respond to the question once I responded to yours.

The answer to your question is Yes.

Your turn.
How does Darwinism then explain the rich diversity of life?
It explains how the rich diversity of life is the result of a process he called natural selection.

Since you know what Darwinism is, please explain it to us.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
15,966
It explains how the rich diversity of life is the result of a process he called natural selection.

Since you know what Darwinism is, please explain it to us.
I'm not so sure about that. Natural selection, select the most fit species to continue for a specific environment. That why we see that huge amounts of species extinct in the past. Something like 90% of everything that lived on earth has gone extinct. The diversity is getting less especially when a more specialised fitness is required like most of the time, nature can be brutal.

I don't think the increase in diversity is very well explained. For me that can only happen in times of abundance were not only the strong servive, but anything and everything gets a chance to breed and pop out some strange and potentially interesting offspring.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
2,618
It explains how the rich diversity of life is the result of a process he called natural selection.

Since you know what Darwinism is, please explain it to us.
Natural selection does not explain the rich diversity of life - it only explains life that survives.
 
Last edited:

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
8,887
Natural selection, select the most fit species to continue for a specific environment. That why we see that huge amounts of species extinct in the past. Something like 90% of everything that lived on earth has gone extinct. The diversity is getting less especially when a more specialised fitness is required like most of the time, nature can be brutal.

I don't think the increase in diversity is very well explained. For me that can only happen in times of abundance were not only the strong servive, but anything and everything gets a chance to breed and pop out some strange and potentially interesting offspring.
Natural selection does not explain the ritch diversity of life - it only explains life that survives.
The diversity of environments that exists promotes a diversity of organisms adapted to them. Environments are not static and are continuously changing and evolving, and all creatures which exist in an environment are also a part of the environment. Millions of years of natural selection results in a huge diversity of life. I agree that we still have a lot to learn about the specifics of adaption, especially on a molecular level, and that our understanding of the actual mechanisms of selection in natural populations is still inadequate, but the understanding that diversity is a result of natural selection is not in doubt..
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280
Yes you almost get it. Just like a logical falicy doesn't invalidate someone's argument just by being named. An appeal to authority doesn't make the authority or the person using that wrong. It actually adds more weight to an argument.
Yes, one has to be careful not to fall into the trap of the Fallacy Fallacy. It's something that is very easily slipped into.
Just because a fallacy has been committed, doesn't mean that the rest of the statement/argument is incorrect. This one has been the hardest to learn.

An Appeal to Authority is under Logical Fallacies because it is trying to use a general respect as a specific respect. That's why it is a Fallacy.

Actual authority is not an appeal, it is established. So by all means, challenge the authority as established, but don't call established authority an appeal to authority because they are different.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
15,966
Yes, one has to be careful not to fall into the trap of the Fallacy Fallacy. It's something that is very easily slipped into.
Just because a fallacy has been committed, doesn't mean that the rest of the statement/argument is incorrect. This one has been the hardest to learn.

An Appeal to Authority is under Logical Fallacies because it is trying to use a general respect as a specific respect. That's why it is a Fallacy.

Actual authority is not an appeal, it is established. So by all means, challenge the authority as established, but don't call established authority an appeal to authority because they are different.
An appeal to authority is pretending someone is right just because they are the authority even if they have been shown to be wrong. It is whipping out credentials and saying anyone who isn't a doctor aren't allowed to comment on health issues. Like when I suggest you try a LCHF dieet to lose weight and you say your GP says that's going to mess up your liver. That's an appeal to authority without making any meaningful argument to support it.

You are reading way to much into the word "general" in the definition. And adding your own meaning around that.
 
Top