Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6850248" data-attributes="member: 42582">It's worth noting that the only reason I have for believing those reasons about antigens and the rapid test is that the doctor told me, and he is an authority. I have no independent access to the plausibility of those reasons.If a geographer tells me the world is round, and a flat-earther tells me that the earth is flat, there is a contention between two parties. But it has no bearing on whether or not I should take the geographer at his/her word, because of the two contending parties only one - the geographer - is an expert.That is an illustration of the point made on the Wikipedia page, that only controversy between experts casts doubt on the reliability of expert testimony as a guide to the truth.Perhaps    [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is also experienced in the use of the word "irrational" among those who have a reason to care about reasons and reasoning. But no such experience has been mentioned to date in this thread.By the phrase word usage is empirical in nature do you mean knowledge of word usage is empirical in nature? Because I only talked about the second.I hope it is fairly clear that I am not talking about "prescriptive usage". I am talking about facts of usage. If someone wants to argue that fact of usage among academic philosophers and lawyers have no bearing on the permissible usage of "irrational", go to town! I haven't seen that argument yet, though.As far as "descriptive" usage, knowledge of that - ie knowledge of facts of word usage - is acquired empirically (ie by observation - including testimony - and by inference from those observed facts), not by logical or mathematical demonstration.You misdescribe my argument.I used the word "irrational" in a post.    [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] queried my usage. I replied that my usage is consistent with the usage of a group of professionals (academic lawyers and philosophers) who have good reason to care, more than most, about the use of that word; and that I know this because I am a member of that group of professionals.Here is a more formal statement of the argument that I have presented:(1) Academic lawyers and philosophers have a particular reason (flowing from their professional concerns) to care about the use of the word "irrational". Therefore, (2) The usage among that group is a permissible - even, perhaps, a canonical - usage. (3) I am an academic lawyer and philosopher. Therefore, (4) I am familiar with the usage, among that group, of the word "irrational". Therefore, I am in a position to assert that (5) My usage of that word in this thread is consistent with the usage among that group. Therefore, (6) My usage in this thread is permissible, and perhaps even an instance of a canonical usage.I think that this argument is valid (though not deductively so, at least as I have presented it - eg the move from (1) to (2) rests on unstated premises about how permissibility of word use is established; the move from (3) to (4) rests on an empirical conjecture that membership of a group results in familiarity with its practices, including practices of word usage - but I have not seen anyone contest these unstated premises).The only appeal to expertise is in relation to (5). That is, instead of instancing the usage of academic lawyers and philosphers and thereby indicating that my usage is consistent with it, I assert, on the basis of my familiarity with their usage, that my usage is consistent with it.If you, or Maxperson, or anyone else wants to rebut my reply, you need to attack either (2), (4) or (5). That is, you need to show (i) that there is no reason to have regard to the usage among the relevant group of professionals in determining the permissible use of the word, or (ii) that I am wrong about their usage, or (iii) that I am wrong in my assertion that my usage in this thread is consistent with their usage. I've seen no argument along the lines of (i).As for an argument along the lines of (ii) or (iii): I've already stated that Maxperson is welcome to doubt my credentials or my honesty or my reliability. (I appreciate that board rules make it tricky for him to actually state such doubt, but if he keeps accusing me of being wrong on this point without presenting an argument along the lines of (i) I am going to be able to draw the inference.)But none of that would make me guilty of a fallacy. It would simply show that one or more of the premises is false. (And hence that the argument, while valid, is not sound.)There's no question begging. I simply affirm what, by Wikipedia, is the second premise in the standard form of the argument; and what, in my restatement of the argument, are premises (4) and (5). It's not question begging to reiterate the premises  of my argument in circumstances where no on has offered any criticism of them.Are you intending to offer such criticism? Do you think I am mischaracterising the usage of "irrational" among academic lawyers and philosophers, or the consistency of my usage with theirs?</blockquote>

Verification