• TXL@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    14 days ago

    I find it kinda of funny that he fell back to appeal to authority fallacy, though.

    • enbipanic@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      Is it appeal to authority? Tbh that reads more like “these are my credentials, and why I know what I’m talking about”

      No authority required there.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      14 days ago

      If he led with that, sure

      But it was a direct response to an assertion that he has no credibility, so it’s one of those times where it is a reasonable response to that sort of comment.

      The fallacy was when the other guy declined to respond to the substance and instead attacked the guys credibility. The opposite of an appeal to authority.

    • cholesterol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 days ago

      First of all, his ‘authority’ (expertise) was specifically being called into question.

      Second, appealing to authority isn’t fallacious when the authority is genuine and relevant.

      It is not fallacious to reason that a math champion is likely better than the average person at math, or that a psychologist is likely better than the average person at understanding the psyche.

      And it is not fallacious to argue that a former minister of trade ‘knows what they are talking about’ when they are talking about tariffs.

      It doesn’t automatically prove them right, either. But again, that does not make the argument itself fallacious.