Interesting response. Do you have some particular physics qualification that gives you confidence to say this in response to the Physics Professor at Tne Leibniz Institute of Photonic Technology who is making these claims?
Yes, the idiotic fallacy of giving greater weight to the opinion of an authority at the subject being discussed. It is no match to the logical chad move of giving weight to the opinion of a random internet commentator who claims something is nonsense without giving any reason or explanation why.
While it’s fair to point out I have no reasons myself, you got the fallacy wrong. You didn’t just give greater weight to their position. You hinged your entire position on theirs. You’re defending something you don’t even understand yourself.
It’s still fair to critics someone’s fallacious argument, though, even if their conclusion happens to be correct. If I say “The sky is blue because it’s actually a big sapphire, my neighbour Bob told me so” it’s clearly a bad argument, even if the conclusion - that the sky is blue - is correct.
It’s not a fallacy to appeal to an independent intellectual authority. Do you disregard all research papers because they’re tainted by authority? Photonic computing is very real, and an ignorance of it doesn’t make you an expert on the validity of a claim. Perhaps you could try reading more to correct this issue. How long have you worn that fedora without washing it?
Interesting response. Do you have some particular physics qualification that gives you confidence to say this in response to the Physics Professor at Tne Leibniz Institute of Photonic Technology who is making these claims?
Whew, straight in with the authority fallacy! How long did you defend your belief in Santa Claus?
Yes, the idiotic fallacy of giving greater weight to the opinion of an authority at the subject being discussed. It is no match to the logical chad move of giving weight to the opinion of a random internet commentator who claims something is nonsense without giving any reason or explanation why.
While it’s fair to point out I have no reasons myself, you got the fallacy wrong. You didn’t just give greater weight to their position. You hinged your entire position on theirs. You’re defending something you don’t even understand yourself.
Just because an argument uses a fallacy doesn’t make its conclusion incorrect. Otherwise known as the fallacy fallacy.
The person they are referring to most certainly has better knowledge on the subject than you.
It’s still fair to critics someone’s fallacious argument, though, even if their conclusion happens to be correct. If I say “The sky is blue because it’s actually a big sapphire, my neighbour Bob told me so” it’s clearly a bad argument, even if the conclusion - that the sky is blue - is correct.
Indeed. But here their argument isn’t incorrect.
I did what? That was my first post in this entire thread.
It’s not a fallacy to appeal to an independent intellectual authority. Do you disregard all research papers because they’re tainted by authority? Photonic computing is very real, and an ignorance of it doesn’t make you an expert on the validity of a claim. Perhaps you could try reading more to correct this issue. How long have you worn that fedora without washing it?
Fallacy fallacy.