|'); } // End -->|
"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: