Why do creationist posters quote so?

Your own quotes refute you, don't you think?

quote:

---

Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle

---

If you have the direct evidence, then why do you need the authority? Either quotation from authority is redundant (you have the direct evidence) or else it's invalid (the authority is making a statement without evidence to support it). In either case there's no use in making appeals to authority.Quotes from authorities can be illustrative, but they're never definitive. If the authority states that something is true, skip that part. Just show us the evidence that led them to that conclusion.I won't even start on the cirularity of using an argument from authority to defend arguments from authority.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-26-2003]

But how would you know that the authority has the data? His say-so? Why not have him or her just tell us the data, and then at that point, you don't have to take his word as an authority, because now you have the data. Again, the argument from authority pales in comparison to the argument from evidence. ...based on data, freely avaliable, and collected via a method consistent with the scientific process. I would never believe that electrons exist because Steve Weinburg told me "they exist because I say they do."You're confusing my position. I'm not saying that all authorities are liars. I'm saying that there's no reason to believe an authority without data, and once you have the data, their position as an authority is made irrelevant. No, it's always the same person: those interested in the subject in question. If they don't have the data, appeals to authority cannot be trusted. Once they have the data, appeals to authority are unnecessary.Your sloppy comprehension does not constitute evidence of my sloppy writing.

None of these are links to any post of mine. Woah, wait a minute, chief. Your failure to properly comprehend my argument is not evidence against it.I never said we couldn't trust information from authorities. After all information in science is supposed to be gathered via the transparent scientific methodology, which gives us an independent way to assess the quality of that data.What I said is that we couldn't trust the conclusions of authorities without access to the same information they used to make those conclusions. And at that point - with that data in hand - we should be able to draw the same conclusion, making the authority irrelevant except for the purpose of illustration or clairity. I have not said it is. I have not said it is. With using information from authorities gathered via the scientific process? None whatsoever. Where did I say there was one? And yet, if it's invalid for me to do so, it's equally invalid for an authority to do so. If they have evidence that supports their argument or conclusion, let it be known. At that point their authority ceases to be relevant. Argument from authority must always give way to argument from evidence.

Then, by definition, it's not an appeal to authority - it's an appeal to evidence.Essentially my argument is that, of three statements:1) "evolution is correct because Stephen Jay Gould says so."2) "evolution is correct because Stephen Jay Gould says so based on such-and-such evidence."3) "evolution is correct because of such-and-such evidence."1 and 2 are not equivalent, but 2 and 3 are. 1 is a fallacious appeal to authority. 2 and 3 are appeals to evidence. You may feel that 2 is a legitamate appeal to authority; I agree that it's a legitamate argument, but not because of the authority, but because of the evidence. Why? Simply because they're an authority? What a world of credulity and naivete you must live in. How are we to be sure that an "authority's" conclusions are based on evidence without access to that evidence? And once we have the evidence, why do we need the authority?I just don't see how a reasonable person could trust that an authority would always be honest enough to support their conclusions with evidence. Then it's hardly argument from authority, is it? It's argument from evidence.Look, if we're just arguing about what words mean, then we're saying the same thing differently. I know - or at least, assume you're reasonable enough to realize - that you don't think "Stephen Jay Gould says so" is a compelling argument. If you believe that "Stephen Gay Gould says so because of such-and-such evidence" is an argument from authority, then I'll accept that as a "legitamate argument from authority." But personally I don't believe that's what is meant by "argument from authority" because to me, that's an argument from evidence.