Right, but there are limits to change.
If, for example, you were to hypothesize that fire was a liquid or some other equally bizarre proposition, this would represent a rather fundamental alteration of the laws of physics. Those pesky laws, which serve to define the external reality can be and often are nudged this way and that to accommodate new data but to toss them out entirely in order to accommodate something or other would be a stretch. Not only would you have to confirm your hypothesis, but you would have to accommodate all of various physical laws which your proposition violates by restating them in such a way that does not conflict with other things.
I would agree with that, however, based on your posts your aren't following that, at least it isn't plainly evident that you are. I can't assume that way either based on postings on the internet.
Ad hominem? I should think not. If I inferred than some notion was fraudulent because it's adherents were descended from incestuous warthogs or something, that would be ad hominem. But holding the opposite position, that someone is a fruitcake for the beliefs to which they cleave, most certainly is not.
Still ad hominem, do you know why? Because you didn't mention reasons as to why their beliefs make them fruitcakes. You say they had these beliefs and due to those beliefs they are fruitcakes. You don't state why those beliefs lead you to conclude that they are fruitcakes.
Be that as it may, it's not incumbent upon a skeptic to disprove anything. Rather it's up to the claimant to confirm its own hypothesis.
Yes and no. If the person gave reasons as to why they believe the way that they do, it is up to the other person to show why they are wrong. Now what they might spite out might be dribble and you might not think worth responding to, but logically you still have to.
Show that it was so. If you what you arguing is true, it should be simple enough to do so.
When I say 'things known to be true' I mean things like f=ma, i=e/r, pi=3.14159265, etc. Definitive things from which other things might be derived, not merely widely held opinions.
That may have been what you meant, but that wasn't what you said. You said "known to be true", this is going to get wishy washy, but "known to be true" has a lot of different connotations if not pointed in the right direction. Now one might assume what you had meant, but that's all that it would have been is an assumption.
The above would seem to be an example of 'denying the antecedent' or 'confirming the consequent'. Either way, if a material implication states if A then B in no way implies that if B then A.
That wasn't my point, my point of that was to show that without scientific backing at the time, something was believed to work and it took a long time to prove it through scientific analysis.
The key point is that just because there is lack of scientific proof at the time doesn't mean that something isn't true. It makes it very hard to believe it's true at the time, but it doesn't flat out mean that it isn't. Like everything else this does depend on the situation.
The original point being that having something around for a while does not grant it credentials. That and nothing else.
No it doesn't automatically grant it credentials.
Even if it is known, or at least should be known, that they are wrong a priori?
From a logical standpoint no. What makes you think that you can grant the idea that something should be known or it is known without equivacation? Someone else might be, but I don't know what credentials you have that enable you to make that call about yourself?
Like I said, if it's something that is just really out there in left field, it should be very easy to say why it is or isn't wrong without just calling them a fruitcake?
Why is it that most anyone with a degree in anything with 'science' in its name somehow assumes that they are an authority or even conversant with the philosophy of science?
By far not an expert, however, I having studied a hard core science, that would put me in more of a position to be more "conversant" about it then just joe blow, wouldn't you think? At least at face value. In the end it would depend on what I actually got out of my education as to if I was truly qualified to discuss philosophy of science. That depends on the individual person.
Now, if I did think of myself as an expert, I wouldn't have spent all that time posting as much as I did with my "evidence". Also remember, I wasn't really questions your conclusions, I was questioning the means in which you were arriving at them. I can still have the same conclusions as you, just not like the means that you arrived at them. The means are also more about a matter of logic then hard core science.
I also mentioned the degree once and that was merely to put out there, so you wouldn't label my discussion as rantings of a fruitcake and therefore, should just be dismissed. You may not have done that, but I have no way of knowing that at the time.
Although, remember for the logical appeal to authority to hold the person has to met 2 criteria: 1. They are experts in their field(usually education is a requirement here, as that is an official record of accomplishment)
and 2. The experts must be in agreement.
Must have both. Not either/or.
Once again, it's incumbent upon the claimant to support and confirm its own hypothesis. The skeptic is under no obligation to disprove it.
Initially...yes. Once evidence has been presented, if it has, then it is up to the skeptic to disprove it, even if the skeptic thinks that the "evidence" is crap and not worth their time.
Apropos of nothing, where did and under whom did you study animal science? I ask because I have, or at least used to have, friends and acquaintances in that region of academia.
Middle Tennessee State University, after it got the ranking of #1 in the East for Horse Science. Dr. Hoffman(equine nutritionist) was my advisor.
What about your credentials? Since we are sharing.
