Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah
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.
|
To clear things up, I think he's saying that just because an argument is a fallacy, that in and of itself does not automatically make the point being argued wrong. I.E., "The sky is blue because of the ammount of hydrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, and we all know whater is blue". Well, my argument is wrong, but the sky IS indeed blue.
But conversely, no one is saying that a particular idea is wrong soley because of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. If you take a read through the Police FLIR footage thread, there's many clear points made for the case of one side, while mug seems to be using his authority (i.e. experience with FLIRs) as the main basis for his argument. As stated, that's what Serenitude is refering to.