T/F: appealing to an expert isn’t a good argument but the expert is an indicator of good arguments?

3 Answers

  • 1 month ago

    False. I think. This question is highly convoluted in it's wording and I am not even sure what you are asking.

  • An expert is just a really good student who has covered a vast amount of material such that they know where everything is and can give directions to passerby or newcomers. They have become good at giving directions and samples of what they learn in the application of other disciplines or in ordinary life. They are a knowledgeable person who is good at giving it in the context, application and needs of the moment. 

    An expert is a useful, reliable, and essential part of a venture. A component in a larger wheel. 

    An expert is someone you use to accelerate your judgments. Much like the cerebellum accelerates the movement and precision of the body.

    An expert is not foolproof. They are not perfect but they are less imperfect than the average person. They make mistakes but at a much slower rate than the average person. 

    The reason this is is because the average person only has a random sampling of the material needed for the task at hand. Unless they are very smart, they cannot give sound advice. Even the very smart can only give a rough outline but there may be human error that only experiment can reveal. And in a critical situation you need error-free advice or minimal error advice. 

    A person who has studied broad and deep and can provide necessary information and advice can only make extraordinary mistakes. And in the course of their career eliminates them as they can. 

  • P
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    The expert SHOULD be an indicator of factual arguments. As we all know experts (like philosophers) rarely agree on anything which allows picking and choosing to select an interpretation which best suits the required outcome. 

    Judging by the results achieved appealing to an expert is not a robust strategy, nor is it necessarily a source for good arguments. Con-men (whatever their political persuadsion or evangelical crusade) are an equally valid source and far more convincing  

    Better by far to stand back from the problem and ask "what makes sense?" and "is it reasonable?"

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.