IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

I'm curious as well - is it a requirement to work in a field in order to discuss policies relating to it on an internet message board?

My guess is that you are trying to perpetrate a Logical Fallacy here - Appealing to an Authority, with yourself as the Authority.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm curious as well - is it a requirement to work in a field in order to discuss policies relating to it on an internet message board?

My guess is that you are trying to perpetrate a Logical Fallacy here - Appealing to an Authority, with yourself as the Authority.

Cycloptichorn

I'm asking because I want to know.

And actually, that's not a logical fallacy. The fallacy only comes in to play when you assume that the authority is infallible. There is no fallacy in the assertion that the authority is correct.

I'd like to point out, especially in reference to medicine, we routinely seek out authorities and ask for their advice which we generally accept as true. According to you, this is also a logical fallacy.

And in that case, we can stop this entire debate with that and simply get rid of doctors since they are logically useless. Or.... maybe you're wrong.

1.

As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.

In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.

What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.

In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.

It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger.

There is no requirement that the authority is identified as 'infallible.' You are simply wrong on this.

My guess is that you are trying to perpetrate a Logical Fallacy here - Appealing to an Authority, with yourself as the Authority.

Oh, and your link also says that appeals to authority are not always a fallacy.

Christ, you're dense.

I never said that every Appeal to Authority was a logical fallacy; I said that I suspected that you are attempting to engage in a logical fallacy, by pointing to yourself as an authority on health care issues because you 'work in the industry.'

Here's exactly what I said:

Quote:

My guess is that you are trying to perpetrate a Logical Fallacy here - Appealing to an Authority, with yourself as the Authority.

This is specifically discussed in the link which I sent you, and you didn't bother to read.

Quote:

Oh, and your link also says that appeals to authority are not always a fallacy.

Don't you think I realized that when I cut and pasted that section for you to read?

Do us a favor - let us know why you wanted to know who worked in the health-care field. Why is it important? Because I think I had you pegged right from the start on this one, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

Do us a favor - let us know why you wanted to know who worked in the health-care field. Why is it important? Because I think I had you pegged right from the start on this one, and you know it.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do us a favor - let us know why you wanted to know who worked in the health-care field. Why is it important? Because I think I had you pegged right from the start on this one, and you know it.
Cycloptichorn

you're awfully defensive about this. it's just a simple question.

And actually, that's not a logical fallacy. The fallacy only comes in to play when you assume that the authority is infallible. There is no fallacy in the assertion that the authority is correct.

Not our government. The military who often spend double on everything are the ones at fault here.

Big surprise! Doctors and hospitals are against cuts in medical compensation.

rabel22 wrote:

Big surprise! Doctors and hospitals are against cuts in medical compensation.

I'm not sure if I would call it "compensation". That word indicates some sort of equality in value. In the case of medicare and medicaid, the payments they make often barely (and in many cases simply don't) cover the cost of care.

So, quit. If they don't like their jobs, tell them to quit and do something else. We will either find people to do the work for less or re-evaluate our decisions on how much to pay.

Either way, it's better then listening to people pule and whine. All over the country people have cut their salaries back and are out of homes and jobs. For doctors and medical practitioners to pretend that they are immune to the recession is ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, quit. If they don't like their jobs, tell them to quit and do something else. We will either find people to do the work for less or re-evaluate our decisions on how much to pay.

Either way, it's better then listening to people pule and whine. All over the country people have cut their salaries back and are out of homes and jobs. For doctors and medical practitioners to pretend that they are immune to the recession is ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

Exactly right, if they don't like it, just quit, we will find somebody that will, even if it requires at the point of a gun, right cyclops. And I am sure there are some untrained illegals we can find in some back alley that wants to work for a few measly dollars. After all, the work is simple, nothing to it.