You did not address this:
Coherence is still judged by the laws of logic, and any theory that is incoherent is also irrational, so I don't know how this is an objection to my point.
Truth To Power wrote:Established knowledge has been shown to be effective in use.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked for a definition
What do you mean by "established knowledge?" what sort of knowledge is established and what is the establishing process?
Truth To Power wrote:Observations that can be replicated by others.
How do you mean "replicated by others" ?
Truth To Power wrote:They in fact are true as a matter of objective physical fact.
Please demonstrate why they are "true" as in being both a logically necessary explanation and exclusive of all other possibilities.
Truth To Power wrote:That's a reason Darwinism ISN'T a good synonym for evolution. Hello?
Truth To Power wrote:Obviously Darwinism isn't Lamarckism. The point is, modern evolutionary theory is not Darwinism, because it includes e.g., molecular and genetic mechanisms of which Darwin was ignorant. It's not just selection pressure applied to inherited phenotypic variation (Darwinism).
As long as random mutation + natural selection exists as the principle explanation for the origin of a species, the theory is sufficiently darwinist as opposed to its contraries. The naming is adequate.
Truth To Power wrote:No, it depends on how we regard the relationship between facts and values.
No, because one does not have to affirm a system of morality to affirm the central tenants of social Darwinism, especially if such is argued as a description of socieities in a historical context. The fact-value distinction is only violated if an is-ought inference is made (fallacy).
Truth To Power wrote:<yawn> No, it is not. The claim in question was that you personally found the theory wanting. Your lack of expertise for making such a judgement is certainly relevant to its validity.
The "yawn" thing does not make much sense, is that some sort of attempt at internet humor? That's cute. Otherwise, the fallacy stands for the following reason: if the validity of my claim that the theory is wanting is to be valid, it can only be evaluated on the basis of whether my conclusions follow from my premises without fallacy or error (incoherence). To argue that my claims are invalid on the basis of my expertise or lack thereof is an appeal to authority (otherwise, why ask about my qualifications regarding empirical science?), for expertise or lack thereof is irrelvant to a claim's validity or invalidity.
Truth To Power wrote:Wrong again. Whose authority did I appeal to? I simply invite readers to consult the evidence of their own senses.
No, I was not wrong. You disqualified Spengler and Nietzche because a lack of experience which is, in fact, an appeal to authority. Indeed, it does not matter whether or not they made it through the first grade. The validity of their claims must be measured on their merits based on their own definitions.
You are guilty of the fallacy, quite clearly. Here, let the record be clear, you said the following:
Truth To Power wrote:Nietzsche and Spengler had no experience with empirical science, little or no training in it beyond high school level, and were consequently utterly unqualified to critique an empirical theory.
logically speaking, there is no such thing as a "qualification" to make a critique, either the critique made is valid, invalid, or unintelligible. To say otherwise (as you clearly did) is a fallacy.
Truth To Power wrote:I wasn't talking about their claims, which are known to be false.
How are they known to be false? Can you demonstrate said falsity?
Truth To Power wrote: I was not arguing that the Theory of Evolution is valid (that has already been amply demonstrated),
You claim to have not committed the fallacy in question, and then you go ahead and commit it again. the phrase
that had already been amply demonstrated
is the point of contention in this conversation, thus to assert its validity or assume its validity prior to making the demonstration of such is a fallacy, it is begging the question.
Truth To Power wrote:much like Hegel's argument that there could only be seven planets, which was disproved empirically within weeks of his making it.
The existence of any
other planets at all
is not necessarily true either. Please demonstrate otherwise.
Truth To Power wrote:It was not a definition, just an example.
Oh good, so it was pointless and didn't demonstrate anything that anyone didn't already agree with.
Glad we're clear on that.
“The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.”
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
- G. K. Chesterton