Endzone2 Wrote:Thank you. I guess that wasn't as difficult as everybody else made it out to be. IMHO it was still a very logical question to ask though.
Yeah, if you still believe that, it is because you have no idea why I asked this question:
Quote:So you are actually saying that the validity of the argument can rise or fall based on who is presenting it?
Let me give you an of examples why this is not so.
A doctored mathematician says, "1 + 1 = 2." A first grader makes the exact same statement.
You would say that the mathematician's statement holds more water because of his background. I (and most others on here) say that the trueness of the statement is independent of the credentials of the speaker.
Granted, common sense should cause you to question the conclusions. You may say that a first grader is much more likely to make a mathematical mistake than a math expert. But you should evaluate those conclusions not by examining who is saying them, but by the argument itself. The trueness of the argument does not change due to the identity of the person saying it.
Secondly, If I say the Earth is shaped like a coffee mug, my credentials do not change the reality of the shape of the Earth. My credentials may go to explaining why I am right or wrong, but they do not change the logical conclusions. If I say that I have no formal training, you may say that I am just ignorant about the shape of the Earth. If I am a Geologist you made being to question my sanity. But argument is not affected by my background.
That is why one does not have to be gay to argue for homosexuals, and they do not have to be straight to argue against them. We all have different motivations, but the arguments rise and fall on their own merits.