Thanks Vidiot. Part Deux:
Justifying beliefs is what the irrationals, the religious and the feeler/perceivers do. I don't care a wit about anyone's belief, as they are almost always grounded in Emotions. That's why I try to never have any Beliefs.
All we should consider when debating is the evidence presented and the findings or conclusions drawn from the evidence. That's it. Feelings, Beliefs, Thoughts, Personal Experiences, Observations and Anecdotal Accounts and Confirmationally Biased tripe mean nothing in debates - they are used to stir those driven or led by their emotions to action and keep them trapped in their belief system. They are debating tactics used by those on the losing side of an argument; they only succeed because we are a pathetic species.
The argument from authority
: argumentum ad verecundiam
) also appeal to authority
, is a common argument form which can be fallacious
, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert. Cofty has not claimed to be the authority; he is citing data from those who have obtained the evidence, all of whom appear to be experts in their field, so use of this term as a debating tactic is improper. The only proper use of this term in this OP is to present evidence showing that those scientists and researchers Cofty references are NOT experts. No one has yet to attempt this.
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four.
Appealing to the evidence is rational and logical. It is the only legitimate debating strategy. One is free - even required - to evaluate the evidence presented, how and by whom it was obtained (are they experts, do they have axes to grind or personal gain to be made from findings, did they employ scientific methods in obtaining and evaluating the evidence, etc.) and any findings, conclusions, correlations, etc. made regarding the evidence.
Cofty is presenting evidence; those who would seek to disprove him need to disprove the evidence, the manner in which it was obtained, or the findings or conclusions drawn from it in order to be an argument from ignorance (appeal to evidence) and meet SBF's use of the term. If you have other viable options as to the conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence cited by Cofty, please present them.