Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Do you believe we are alone in the universe?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7767194" data-attributes="member: 177"><p>Thank you for asking that. It allows me the proper context to point things out.</p><p></p><p>The logical fallacy points out to us that being or having authority, <em>in and of itself</em> does not make one technically correct. Stephen Hawking could not go to a conference and say, "You are incorrect. I am Stephen Hawking, and therefore I you know this to be true." Even Hawking had to explain himself to his fellow physicists. </p><p></p><p>But *something* gives us technical correctness, doesn't it? It isn't like technical correctness is randomly assigned, and we are all just as likely as each other to blunder onto it. No, technical correctness is gained through application of knowledge and expertise. It is not *guaranteed* by those, but it does stem from them. </p><p></p><p>Now, note that in my example, the surgeon does not *actually* speak from authority. He speaks from knowledge. He has the learning to listen to heart, and assess the risk that you are having a heart attack. Even if you gave the stethoscope to Frank, and he listened to your heart, he doesn't have the expertise to interpret what he hears. </p><p></p><p>This is the point - this wasn't about authority. It was about having enough expertise and understanding to have an informed opinion. Having expertise does not mean you are correct, but *NOT* having expertise pretty much assures you are correct only by accident, or by parroting someone else who does have expertise.</p><p></p><p>***</p><p></p><p>So, this brings us to the stent question. In my example, the surgeon had a particular reason for recommending a course of action. Yours does not have one stated.</p><p></p><p>Also, there's another piece of information implicit in the stent example - in the real world, *other doctors* have noted that use of stents is not without risk. We presume that is also the case in our hypothetical. So, instead of a cardiac surgeon and Frank, we have cardiac surgeons and other doctors. They all have expertise to have informed opinion. When we have conflicting thoughts from multiple people who know enough to have an informed opinion, accepted authority or not, then we have a different kind of conversation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7767194, member: 177"] Thank you for asking that. It allows me the proper context to point things out. The logical fallacy points out to us that being or having authority, [i]in and of itself[/i] does not make one technically correct. Stephen Hawking could not go to a conference and say, "You are incorrect. I am Stephen Hawking, and therefore I you know this to be true." Even Hawking had to explain himself to his fellow physicists. But *something* gives us technical correctness, doesn't it? It isn't like technical correctness is randomly assigned, and we are all just as likely as each other to blunder onto it. No, technical correctness is gained through application of knowledge and expertise. It is not *guaranteed* by those, but it does stem from them. Now, note that in my example, the surgeon does not *actually* speak from authority. He speaks from knowledge. He has the learning to listen to heart, and assess the risk that you are having a heart attack. Even if you gave the stethoscope to Frank, and he listened to your heart, he doesn't have the expertise to interpret what he hears. This is the point - this wasn't about authority. It was about having enough expertise and understanding to have an informed opinion. Having expertise does not mean you are correct, but *NOT* having expertise pretty much assures you are correct only by accident, or by parroting someone else who does have expertise. *** So, this brings us to the stent question. In my example, the surgeon had a particular reason for recommending a course of action. Yours does not have one stated. Also, there's another piece of information implicit in the stent example - in the real world, *other doctors* have noted that use of stents is not without risk. We presume that is also the case in our hypothetical. So, instead of a cardiac surgeon and Frank, we have cardiac surgeons and other doctors. They all have expertise to have informed opinion. When we have conflicting thoughts from multiple people who know enough to have an informed opinion, accepted authority or not, then we have a different kind of conversation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Do you believe we are alone in the universe?
Top