@Yorumi Let me start with this: I should apologize (also for a wall of text incoming). You made clear that you didn't like the connection between your argument and suicide which I will admit was hyperbolic. I still argue that we have plenty of evidence that shows telling people they are sick and need treatment within the LGBT community has been ineffective and dangerous, which is why I suggested this may be similar. I shouldn't have let there be any implication that YOU personally were going to be responsible for something like that. If I allowed myself to be read as hostile, it comes from my frustration with the average layperson believing that access to the internet allows them be an authority on something like medicine, when I've seen the intense, crushing workload that my wife and our friends have gone through to train in the field. I can take that personally (more personally than my wife probably) and that's no good. But nothing that I have said was meant to be read as "screaming," and my initial response replying to you and several others I was in no way meant as an attack and I hope it wasn't read that way. I think I later escalated from your "professionals" comment and what you said about 40,000 gender identities and let my tone shift more than I should have. I really do apologize.
And I'll grant you this: Appeal to authority is tricky and we're basically saying the same thing with it. My understanding of it is essentially this: "A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, this is a Bayesian statement — it is likely to be true, rather than necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true — not prove it.
A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)"
Essentially that in its purest Socratic sense, arguing from authority can never be true, because authority can of course be wrong. It is an "informal fallacy." But it is only only logically fallacious if the evidence cited is not authoritative. It is still logically valid. As I said, all of academia and science relies on arguing from authority in order to build up the credibility of an argument. So yes, sometimes they're effectively appealing to the majority of the authority which can never be "True," but it can still be cogent.
I think I could also argue that you're in danger of making an argument from fallacy, which is itself a fallacy
And of course science gets it wrong. But that gets used too often to disprove science as a whole and to undermine its credibility, when the very nature of it's disproving itself is what gives it its credibility. Most scientists actively work to disprove their ideas in order to better prove them. We work with what we know and what the evidence has shown. But you can't say "They're wrong, and you can't say I'm not because science has gotten it wrong before and I'm entitled to my opinion." We work with what we see and know now, and adjust if/when the evidence shows otherwise.
This news has been published by title ANIMAL CONNECTION: When Life Throws A Curveball, Responsibly Rehoming Pets Is Important
If the page you entrance is mistake or not retrieve perfectly, engross visit the native web in source CLICK HERE
Thank you for your visit to our website, hopefully the information we convey is useful, realize not forget to share and subscribe our web to get more information.[TAG]639