Am I not correct that the appeal to authority fallacy only applies when the authority in question is not pertinent to the point being made?

You are indeed correct. There is a larger context for the conversation between Mugaliens and Serenitude. In a different thread, Mugaliens inappropriately dismissed an argument as a fallacious appeal to authority, when in fact it was a legitimate appeal to authority. Then Mugaliens tried to establish himself as an authority and argue strenuously on that basis. It appears Serenitude is trying to persuade Mugaliens to reconcile his contradiction.

If that is correct, then mugaliens' post is not a fallacy, since he's claiming expertise in the use and interpretation of FLIR equipment. That's legitimate authority.

It is. But the problem is that Mugaliens is dismissing the legitimate authority of others who disagree with him, arguing that it is an appeal to authority and appeals to authority are categorically fallacious. In other words, Mugaliens' acceptance of authority correlates more with whether the expert opinion supports his claims rather than whether it's legitimately applied.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

It's a fraud!

Where are the stars?

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.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

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.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

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.

Yes, I agree. In fact, that's the aptly-named Fallacy Fallacy.

Well, my argument is wrong, but the sky IS indeed blue.

Of course. The problem comes from the burden of proof. If a claimant has it, and supports it with a fallacious argument, the claim fails. That specific claim fails, to be sure. But if the claimant still wishes to propose his statement, he has to find another argument for it or withdraw it. Where a presumption is appropriate, the presumption will continue to hold upon failure of the alternative argument.

Using your example, if you wanted to argue that the sky on some other planet (i.e., such that it can't be observed directly) were blue, and your argument in support of it were undisputed evidence that the atmosphere contained water, your argument would still fail. But that failure doesn't affect whether the sky really is blue. It doesn't prove that the sky is not blue. Nor does it mean that some other perfectly valid argument can't be made in favor of your same proposition.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Ah yes, I see. I missed the irony there (in Serenitude's post).

First coined by Major Major Major Major, no doubt.

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

It doesn't prove that the sky is not blue. Nor does it mean that some other perfectly valid argument can't be made in favor of your same proposition.
Precisely. Just need people to keep in mind that the observation of a fallacy isn't necessarily an attack of the theory, but more-so an attack of the method. A couple of these CT and ATM threads appear to be part of some game-show that I was not aware of called "Name That Fallacy!", and there is an increasing decrease () in the amount of actual discussion going on, as well as an increasing adversarial feel to the posts.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

Besides which, even when certain posters do mention logical fallacies in the pursuit of debunking, they then generally go on to explain why it's a fallacy--and what the correct explanation in fact is. It's not just calling out the names of fallacies as debunking tools. Sometimes, strangely enough, someone using a lot of logical fallacies is wrong. Who'da thunk it?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

You have to write judiciously. Sometimes the best answer is the shortest and most direct. Conspiracists love to mire down a losing argument in minutia, and often a lengthy answer provides them with the minutia they need.

For example, when Millen[n]ium argues that the lunar module plans were destroyed in order to keep later engineers from discovering that it wouldn't have worked as designed, the proper answer is simply to identify the Subverted Support fallacy: detailed information is available and engineers can use it to verify the operation of the lunar module. That's a complete and correct answer. No need to explain why something happened that didn't happen.

It's sometimes interesting and informative to discuss the composition of documentation in aerospace development, the prevailing retention policy for that industry, the nature of historical significance (one person's trash is another's treasure), and the responsibility to help preserve the national heritage. But since those are "soft" points, they can be argued subjectively until the cows come home (and have their lips ripped off by aliens).

It's not important whether Grumman followed prevailing policy. It's not important whether Grumman had (or should have had) an appropriate commitment to historical preservation. It's instead important that the supposed condition for which an explanation is demanded just isn't true.

It's impolite to be dismissive, but getting straight to the point isn't dismissive.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Yes, Fazor and Donnie, (and anyone else wondering) Jay has explained the situation much more clearly than I could have done, so I will simply refer to his reply for the explanation of "fallacy call" Good eye, though. In any other circumstance that would have been a very appropriate carpet-call - keep up the good work

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

You are correct that pointing out a logical fallacy does not necessarily address the claim itself. However, using faulty reasoning to justify a claim is an important thing to point out. It undermines the validity of the claim itself. Furthermore, excessive display of faulty logic prevents being able to follow conclusions from the evidence presented, or connect whether the evidence supports the conclusion or undermines it. So it is usually important to identify faulty reasoning if only to help prevent the recurrent pattern of known sources of error in argumentation and drawing of conclusions.

That said, once the underlying logical fallacies are addressed and the ramifications sorted out, the claim itself then needs to be evaluated if there is any merit to it left.

That's right.

As my nymphomaniacal cousin, Anna Nuki, used to say "Skepticism ruins everything! Time to be switchin' partners again. Let's party!"

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

You know, so far, debunkers--at least in my experience--have gotten it right every time, eventually. Because, unlike some people, they're willing to be corrected when they're wrong about something.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

. . .unlike some people . . .

[cough]conspiracy theorists[/cough]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Well, them too

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Wow - That, I cannot debunk, except to say that with CGI, it's possible that it was fabricated.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

One of these days, Maksutov, you must introduce me to your cousin.

I'm a nice guy - really! Not that such would hold much water with your cousin...

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

First post here, so be gentle eh?

I'd like to suggest that this could easily be both RC/Wire work and CGI.
At 38 seconds ( Second linked Vid ) the camera loses track of the "UFO" as it moves left out of frame and the camera jerks around.
Then once the camera reacquires the "UFO" it's already beginning to move off.
So at the point were the camera loses the "UFO" it would be easy to get the RC/Wire controlled model out of frame and continue filming. Then comp the "UFO" streaking off. It sounds a lot harder than it is.
I've actually done similar things before in school.

Just a thought.

P.S. Hi!

Welcome to the board, Orbital. I know when it zooms off, it just doesn't look right (I know, how is a UFO suppose to look?). But the motion blur doesn't look consistent with a video camera of that type. Looks more consistent with 3DStudio's "Image"-style blur (basically the same as photoshop's but adjusts for 3d motion).

Brings up an interesting question; looking for a "career" job (I have a good job now, just not what I want to do as a career), wonder if there's a market for video analysts and how exactly you'd get into that in the first place? hmm...

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"