|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
You know... those about education
judge who has been on the bench
in the Ninth Circuit since 1999
Judge Alsup studied
law at Harvard University, and then when he graduated, he worked as a law clerk
for Associate Justice of the United States William O. Douglas in the U.S.
Supreme Court.
The best in the class at Harvard
University in 1971. Alsup was in private practice for a while, and then he
worked as an Assistant Solicitor General in the US Department of Justice, after
which he was Special Counsel in the Antitrust Division of the US Department of
Justice.
or the lack of education
Mueller is not even a
lawyer, not even in his native Germany
Of course... instead of
honestly missing the facts presented....
I suppose you could ignore the
facts that were presented, providing a single quote out of context and claiming
there were no facts.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
I'm not calling him names. But it's important
to express moral indignation when you feel it.
The judge can't speak. He can't defend himself.
It remains for others to speak up, and so I
have.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 10:25 PM EDT |
| Referring to the Wikipedia article on Argument from
authority (another name for appeal to authority) shows the logical fallacy
in your claim that PJ's argument has a logical fallacy.
Note that I am not
citing wikipedia as an authority, but it is a convenient link to the information
and their citations.
As the article points out, there is argument from
authority, which is of the form
- The authority is a legitimate expert on
the subject
- A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter
under discussion.
And then there is fallacious arguments
from authority, which miss one of the two steps or assert that the conclusion
must be true instead of likely true (as with any inductive
argument).
Claiming that Judge Alsup is more likely to be correct in his 41
page analysis of the law in this case, written as a formally issued order after
much research by a District Court judge who has the background and experience
that he has (which PJ laid out in her article) and who has been recognized by
legitimate experts for his achievements in his field of expertise -- more likely
to be correct than this person who does not have the educational background nor
the experience nor the consensus among legitimate experts for his views -- That
is an argument from authority that contains the elements necessary to prevent it
from being a fallacious argument from authority. (The element of consensus being
in regard to the presumption that his official opinions have more solid legal
basis than those of the non-expert. Of course it is too early to show a
consensus on these specific opinions on copyright law.)
To put it more
simply, do you really believe that when someone says "What Judge Alsup says
about copyright law has more weight than what FM says because Judge Alsup is a
long time recognized expert on exactly that subject speaking in his professional
capacity and FM is not" that it makes sense to say "Don't be fooled - That
statement fits the formula for a logical fallacy and so nobody should believe
it"? When your conclusion is so obviously counter to reality you should check
your own reasoning for a logical fallacy. In this case it is equating "argument
from authority" with "fallacious argument from authority".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 01:00 AM EDT |
To Appeal to Authority is not to say that no person should be considered and
expert in their fields.
To Appeal to Authority is to argue against demonstrated fact by citing an
individual as an absolute authority (as opposed to a credible source) and
declaiming that all they speak must be true so the facts must be wrong.
That is, it is reasonable to give reasonable weight to expertise. You do this
every time you cite a reference of any sort.
When picking between two equally non-supported (e.g. no citations listed
directly) statements it is generally acceptable to weigh them both with respect
to credibility of the statement's source. This is, among other things, the basis
of "expert testimony".
It may seem a fine distinction, but it is a real distinction.
Plus "Legal Opinions" are indeed that very thing, opinions. Buy
definition they opine. So the expertise of the speaker is the whole of the
whole, even if the parts of the parts are based on citation.
At some point something must close the circle of information condensation
because nobody can know and double-check all of recorded knowledge for each
atomic fact.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
