|'); } // End -->|
In Reply to: I liked the response you deleted better. posted by robert young on April 16, 2007 at 13:41:51:
Telling? You've got some nerve. I chose to post a more tactful response knowing you're simply acting out your naysayer fantasies here and have no real experience in these areas, that you are simply spouting off at the mouth. A poser as it were, who's in way over his head.
Why did you assume that my use of "telling" meant anything bad? I was actually thinking how surprising it was to have read a reply from you that wasn't laced with anger and bile.
So I'm a nay-sayer. I'm looking for proof for any of your claims, and you can't seem to give one, other than relying on an appeal to an "authority" you yourself have made up.
So I "have no real experience in these areas?" Guess what Geoff? I don't think anyone, even you, can have "real" experience in these areas, whatever the areas may be, because I can't find any proof that "these areas" are "real" at all. You made the claim, you supply the proof.
More grumbling from the peanut gallery. And so demanding. Sorry to disappoint you, but the proof must be yours.
Gee, Geoff, I didn't realize that's how it works. YOU make the claim, I doubt your claim, so therefore the burden of proof lies with me. Glad you cleared all that up for me.
Your claiming to be an architect and then claiming to know something worth more than 2 cents about audio - now, that's an Appeal to Authority! LOL
Just when you think you know it all, you can still learn something; well, theoretically, probably not in your particular case. HA HA HA
"Your claiming to be an architect and then claiming to know something worth more than 2 cents about audio - now, that's an Appeal to Authority! LOL"
You continue to embarass yourself. Yes I am an architect (you can even check it out if you'd like by going to www.polshek.com. I'm sure you'll have lots to say later about that too). Yes, I know more than "two cents" about audio. However, having never related my professional skills with my "two cent" knowledge means there has been no "Appeal to Authority." What it does mean, however, is that you are bothered enough to look at my Asylum profile. Now that's funny! Given how knowledgeable you are about a concept such as the "burden of proof," I'm surprised you would make such an egregious error on such a simple concept as the Appeal to Authority.
"Just when you think you know it all, you can still learn something; well, theoretically, probably not in your particular case. HA HA HA"
And just when I thought you'd only blow the "Appeal to Authority" bit, you go ahead and construct an ad hominem. Nice going.
More loud snoring. So you're an architect. Big deal. That's my point - that you do consider it a big deal and somehow relevant to PH discussions. You are, as you so kindly pointed out, just another Naysayer... yet one who apparently hasn't memorized the Skeptics Handbook, thus cannot argue effectively for your side. What is left for me to do to entertain myself?
"So you're an architect. Big deal. That's my point - that you do consider it a big deal and somehow relevant to PH discussions."
Geoff: Please point out to me where I have made being an architect a "big deal and somehow relevant to PH discussions?" YOU brought up the fact that I'm an architect, not me. YOU looked up my profile and made it part of the "dialogue." I don't think it's relevant at all, and so I've not written about it. You, however, did. What is it about this that is so hard to understand?
Can I suggest you take a logic course or read a textbook on the subject? After all is said and done, you still don't know what an Appeal to Authority is. Back to the drawing boards HA HA HA
changing sides, as I am rather fond of easy victories. By the way, you still don't know what an Appeal to Authority is.
Here's an annotated description of how the fallacy of the Appeal to Authority works:
1) Person A (that's you, Geoff) claims to be an authority on subject S. Here's your claim of authority: "You say, conjecture, I say experience. Of which you have none, and I have a lot." Here's your subject S: the effects of freeze/thaw processes on objects not being frozen/thawed.
2) Person A makes a claim C about subject S. Here's that claim of yours, Geoff: "freezing/thawing a book in the room will also improve the sound of a CD, regardless of whether the CD has gone thru the freeze/thaw process."
3) Therefore, C is true because person A is an authority on S.
This is fallacious when person A is not an authority on the subject at hand. I posit that you cannot claim "authority" because the subject itself is bogus. What you may consider justification for considering yourself to be an "expert" I see as self-deluded nonsense. You were given the opportunity to provide both the research and the results to back your claims, to demonstrate both the concept's validity as well as to contradict my accusation, but you have been unable to do so, claiming that it is my responsibility to prove you're wrong, not your responsibility to back up your claims. You have gone for a little barefoot romp on the logic lawn, where you have inadvertently stepped in a big pile.
Sorry I can't continue this educational banter with you Geoff, but I've got to go find out what I can get for the 2-cents worth of audio knowledge I have.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: