Mitch Modeleski aka Paul Andrew Mitchell

[Famspear]

Step one: look up 'appeal to authority'.

No. Appeal to authority is form of fallacy in logic. Citing authority in the context of American law is not the fallacy of "appeal to authority."

Yet somehow Famspear felt the need to write extensively about this "babble".

Yes. That's what many of the regulars here do. We write extensively about babble. Right now, we're writing about your babble.

Emphasis mine!

Oh and by the way, law is just a set of inference rules, WHICH ARE FACTS.

No, law is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority.

Yawn, this is getting way too easy!

No, it's not getting easy -- not for you. You're being humiliated. And for good reason. You're doing it to yourself.

[Famspear]

Oh, and since you do not understand what the fallacy of Appeal to Authority is, here's another lesson.

Pay attention.

How to understand what is and what is not the fallacy of Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)

In attempting to make up one's mind on a difficult and complicated question, one may seek to be guided by the judgment of an acknowledged expert who has studied the matter thoroughly. One may argue that such and such a conclusion is correct because it is the best judgment of such an expert authority. This method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate. For most of us the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of that authority's competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence. If nonexperts are disputing over some question of physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein on the matter, that testimony is very relevant. Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it. This is a relative matter, however, for if experts rather than nonexperts are disputing over a question in the field in which they themselves are experts, their appeal would be only to the facts and to reason, and any appeal to the authority of another expert would be completely without value as evidence.

But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of that authority's special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. If in an argument about morality one of the disputants appeals to the opinions of Darwin, a great authority in biology, the appeal is fallacious. Similarly, an appeal to the opinions of a great physicist like Einstein to settle a political or economic argument would be fallacious. The claim might be that people brilliant enough to achieve the status of authorities in advanced and difficult fields like biology or physics must have correct opinions in field other than their specialties. But the weakness of this claim is obvious when we realize that, in this day of extreme specialization, to obtain thorough knowledge of one field requires such concentration as to restrict the possibility of achieving authoritative knowledge in others. Advertising "testimonials" are frequent instances of this fallacy. We are urged to wear garments of such and such a brand because a champion golfer or football star affirms their superiority. And we are assured that such and such a cosmetic is better because it is preferred by this opera singer or that movie star. Of course, such an advertisement may equally well be construed as snob appeal and listed as an example of an argumentum ad populum. But where a proposition is claimed to be literally true on the basis of its assertion by an "authority" whose competence lies in a different field, we have a fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.

--from Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, Macmillan Publishing Company (7th ed. 1986), pp. 98-99 (emphasis added).

Citing actual primary authority such as the text of a statute (as wserra did) or citing recognized secondary authority such as a law school hornbook on criminal law (as I did) are not examples of the fallacy of appeal to authority. These are not appeals to testimony in matters outside the province of that authority's special field.

In American jurisprudence, we demonstrate the correctness of a point of law by citing to authority -- preferably to primary authority (such as statutes and case law), and also in some cases to secondary authority (such as learned treatises on law). Such citations are not fallacies of appeal to authority.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about, "norrha."

[wserra]

Yawn, this is getting way too easy!

Yep, writing nonsense is definitely easier than writing sense. Why, a chimp banging on a typewriter would produce something more cogent than you.

But likely just as easily.

[morrand]

Notice how Famspear did not actually refute any of my statements. He merely posited facts under which the court might rule a defendant incompetent to stand trial, or argue insanity defense. He did not prove those facts exhaustive. He has essentially proven that A implies B, A being those facts, and B the court's action mentioned above. He has yet to prove that B implies A though.

Is Famspear employing the device 'affirming the consequent'?

Hmm...

[W]e can reason to a valid conclusion in a mixed-conditional syllogism by denying the consequent, then denying the antecedent, as in:

If Sweeney's watching creature features, then he's having nightmares.
Sweeney's not having nightmares.
Then Sweeney's not watching creature features.

In this case the categorical premise denies the consequent and the conclusion denies the antecedent. Such a valid argument is called denying the consequent, or modus tollens. We must be careful here as well, though:

If Sweeney's watching creature features, then he's having nightmares.
Sweeney's not watching creature features.
Then he's not having nightmares.

Although the argument appears valid, it is not, as this logical analogy proves:

If that boy is my brother, then he's a male.
That boy is not my brother.
Therefore, that boy is not a male.

So, in a conditional syllogism the categorical proposition should never deny the antecedent. The fallacy of denying the antecedent always results in an invalid argument.

In this case,

...when a man fails to act as a "person before the law", or pay reverence to those laws, he's viewed as mentally deranged by the society holding those laws.

Restating, "If a man fails to act as a 'person before the law,' then he's viewed as mentally deranged by the society holding those laws." Denying the antecedent would thus be to argue:

This man did not fail to act as a "person before the law."
Therefore, he's not viewed as mentally deranged by the society holding those laws.

That is not the argument being made. Far from it, in fact. The argument actually being made is:

That's not how the law works, you twit.

Point to Famspear.

Also,

Oh and by the way, law is just a set of inference rules, WHICH ARE FACTS.

An Easy-Bake Oven is also a set of inference rules. WHICH ARE FACTS.

Quoted material is from Barry, Vincent E. Practical Logic. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976. p. 187.

[norrha]

Oh, how wonderful! Here we have a bunch of "legal scholars" that are pretty much ignorant on logic.

Notice Morrand's lasts posting for example, confusing 'denying the antecedent' with 'affirming the consequent'.

And Wserra clearly employed a couple of well-trained monkey to author that post, since it lacked any relevant arguments.

This is what Famspear wrote:

It sounds as though you have read some stuff somewhere on the rules of logic, including stuff about fallacies in logical arguments. Here's what I suggest you consider doing.

If you haven't already done so, get admitted to an accredited college or university, enroll there, study for four years, and obtain at least a bachelor's-level degree -- in something. Then, if you have not already done so, take the Law School Admission Test and apply for admission to an accredited law school. Get accepted, and enroll in a law school, preferably one accredited by the American Bar Association (or, if you're in California, at least one accredited by the state of California). Be sure that the law school you attend offers a course with a title such as "Logic of Legal Discourse." Not all law schools offer it. Take that course, and work hard and earn an "A" in that course. If you can find such a course, you may learn about how different forms of logical arguments are used in legal analysis. You may learn about fallacies in legal logic. Be advised that law school is not generally like college. Study hard for three years, reading thousands of texts of actual court decisions and statutes. Study constitutional law, contracts, torts, property, criminal law, legal research, civil procedure, evidence, and many other legal subjects. Finish your law school courses, and earn and receive the degree of Doctor of Jurisprudence.

implying that in order to be learned in logic and fallacies, one must "get admitted to an accredit college", "obtain at least a bachelor's degree", "take Law School Admission Test", and so on. This is clearly an 'appeal to authority', the authority being the body of those institutions.

Yawn, you are no match for me!

[Famspear]

Oh, how wonderful! Here we have a bunch of "legal scholars" that are pretty much ignorant on logic.

No. See our prior posts. You, by contrast are indeed ignorant of the rules of logic.

Notice Morrand's lasts posting for example, confusing 'denying the antecedent' with 'affirming the consequent'.

And Wserra clearly employed a couple of well-trained monkey to author that post, since it lacked any relevant arguments.

This is what Famspear wrote:

It sounds as though you have read some stuff somewhere on the rules of logic, including stuff about fallacies in logical arguments. Here's what I suggest you consider doing.

If you haven't already done so, get admitted to an accredited college or university, enroll there, study for four years, and obtain at least a bachelor's-level degree -- in something. Then, if you have not already done so, take the Law School Admission Test and apply for admission to an accredited law school. Get accepted, and enroll in a law school, preferably one accredited by the American Bar Association (or, if you're in California, at least one accredited by the state of California). Be sure that the law school you attend offers a course with a title such as "Logic of Legal Discourse." Not all law schools offer it. Take that course, and work hard and earn an "A" in that course. If you can find such a course, you may learn about how different forms of logical arguments are used in legal analysis. You may learn about fallacies in legal logic. Be advised that law school is not generally like college. Study hard for three years, reading thousands of texts of actual court decisions and statutes. Study constitutional law, contracts, torts, property, criminal law, legal research, civil procedure, evidence, and many other legal subjects. Finish your law school courses, and earn and receive the degree of Doctor of Jurisprudence.

implying that in order to be learned in logic and fallacies, one must "get admitted to an accredit college", "obtain at least a bachelor's degree", "take Law School Admission Test", and so on. This is clearly an 'appeal to authority', the authority being the body of those institutions.

Yes. In order to be learned in logic and fallacies, you need to LEARN this stuff. And no, suggesting that you consider getting an education is not an "appeal to authority."

Go back and re-read my posts.

Yawn, you are no match for me!

You're an ignorant, arrogant know-nothing. So, yes, we're definitely not a "match."

[obadiah]

Oh, how wonderful! Here we have a bunch of "legal scholars" that are pretty much ignorant on logic.

Actually you are brilliantly misusing and misunderstanding logic. As a mis-user, you are becoming awe inspiring!

[Burnaby49]

Oh, how wonderful! Here we have a bunch of "legal scholars" that are pretty much ignorant on logic.

Actually you are brilliantly misusing and misunderstanding logic. As a mis-user, you are becoming awe inspiring!

Perhaps norrha should move over to the Dean Clifford discussion and start arguing with essene. We could all just sit back and enjoy the show.

[obadiah]

I would love to but I'm on 12-7 for a few weeks. If this is still going on in a few weeks (probably) I'll do that. I enjoy word twisting.

[Burnaby49]

I meant that norrha should move over to the Dean Clifford discussion. He and essene are two of a kind. Blowhards that know nothing about the law but will argue with you about it forever.

[notorial dissent]

Yeah, maybe they can argue with each other and provide some amusement since that is about all they are going to provide otherwise.

[obadiah]

Yeah, maybe they can argue with each other and provide some amusement since that is about all they are going to provide otherwise.

[norrha]

Good ol' Fammy boy doesn't seem to comprehend that an 'appeal to authority' distilled to its basic form is "I'm right cause expert X says so" - REGARDLESS of X actually being an expert on the subject. Little Fammy believes he can escape the fallacy merely by inserting the verb "suggest", such as "I suggest I'm right because X says so". Fammy's posting on learning about logic and fallacies is fallacious in that regard. Now off you go, stand in the corner, and let mommy wipe your nose!

Still swinging and missing!

Lastly and for the record, if I don't respond to someone, it usually means they have nothing worthwhile to respond to.

[Famspear]

Good ol' Fammy boy doesn't seem to comprehend that an 'appeal to authority' distilled to its basic form is "I'm right cause expert X says so" - REGARDLESS of X actually being an expert on the subject. Little Fammy believes he can escape the fallacy merely by inserting the verb "suggest", such as "I suggest I'm right because X says so". Fammy's posting on learning about logic and fallacies is fallacious in that regard. Now off you go, stand in the corner, and let mommy wipe your nose!

Still swinging and missing!

No. "Appeal to authority" does not mean what YOU say it means, 'norrha". We've already provided you with the correct meanings. That isn't going to change.

Lastly and for the record, if I don't respond to someone, it usually means they have nothing worthwhile to respond to.

No, if you don't respond, it means that YOU YOURSELF have nothing worthwhile to say.

[norrha]

More nonsense by Fammy boy. Here's what logicallyfallacious has to say on the subject:

Appeal to Authority
argumentum ad verecundiam

(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

Logical Form:

According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true.

Therefore, Y is true.

You wan't me to change your diapers as well?

[Famspear]

More nonsense by Fammy boy. Here's what logicallyfallacious has to say on the subject:

Appeal to Authority
argumentum ad verecundiam

(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

Logical Form:

According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true.

Therefore, Y is true.

You wan't me to change your diapers as well?

At this point, your copying and pasting stuff from the internet does not rescue your situation.

Further, the fact that you bring up the need to change diapers is illuminating, squirt.

[wserra]

It actually is worse than that, Famspear. Look at the following exchange, taken from Diaperboy's own reference:

Question from a reader:

In paragraph 4 of the Norwegian constitution it says this about our kings: "The king must always confess to/follow the evangelical-Lutheran religion". So one could argue: the king of Norway must follow the evangelical-lutheran religion (in other words be a Christian) because it says so in the constitution.

Wouldn't that be an appeal to authority fallacy?

Answer from someone who appears to be a honcho there:

I don't know anything about Norwegian constitutional law, but it would seem to me that this is a pretty legitimate authority for this issue from what you wrote (so not fallacious).

Among the plethora of things that Diaperboy fails to understand: in almost every case, much of legal argument is by definition appeal to authority. Appeals to convincing authority win, appeals to what Diaperboy believes lose. Law is made by authority, whether statute, case or regulation. Which is why you and I cite to authority, and Diaperboy cites to himself.

[norrha]

At this point, your copying and pasting stuff from the internet does not rescue your situation.

As opposed to "your copying and pasting stuff" from some 40-year-old book?

Among the plethora of things that Diaperboy fails to understand: in almost every case, much of legal argument is by definition appeal to authority. Appeals to convincing authority win, appeals to what Diaperboy believes lose. Law is made by authority, whether statute, case or regulation. Which is why you and I cite to authority, and Diaperboy cites to himself.

Isn't it funny how Serraboy commits two separate but closely related fallacies here. I'll leave it as a homework for you all to figure it out. Maybe you could borrow Fammyboy's book, provided it hasn't been soiled already. Tip: we're discussing the 'appeal to authority' fallacy in relation to logic and fallacies.

P.S. ever hear of judicial economy of the Common Law - as opposed to statutory law? D.S.

[Dr. Caligari]

ever hear of judicial economy of the Common Law - as opposed to statutory law?

No, why don't you enlighten us?

[Famspear]

At this point, your copying and pasting stuff from the internet does not rescue your situation.

As opposed to "your copying and pasting stuff" from some 40-year-old book?

Oh, good point, Diaperboy! Why copy and paste from some weird, 40 year old thing called a "book" -- a college textbook, written by some expert, when we can watch Diaperboy pontificate!



I don't have a "situation", Diaperboy.