All too often it seems skeptical minds are quick to point out various "fallacies" in discussion rather than actually discussing.
And other minds are quick to pass judgment without getting the whole story. Serenitude's approach is exactly correct, if you make the effort to see how it arose. Serenitude is applying pressure on someone to reconcile a contradictory approach in his arguments. Mugaliens tried to argue that all references to authority (even where legitimate) committed the fallacy of Appeal to Authority. But then he cited his own considerable experience authority on IR imaging as evidence that his interpretation ought to be accepted. He can't tenably argue the former point and then demand acceptance of his own authority.
As if that effectively "debunks" something.
In this case it does, if you understand the context. And in many other cases it does as well. If an argument is based on a fallacy, it does not hold. If it does not hold, then it cannot compel rational belief.
|