zenmonkey wrote:Systematiker wrote:zenmonkey wrote:Rodiniye wrote:To finish the Sapir-Whorf and other mentions... this project was part of my dissertation in one of the best unis in Spain and it got 99% mark. It included all this theory. Do you think expert people would give a 99/100 if things were made up or just wrong? or if they did not make sense? then think twice, it is all I have to say about this arrogance some people have sometimes.
That's a major fallacy. You aren't addressing the points brought up but attempting to say they are right because they are referenced by an authority on something. It's called an appeal to authority.
I'm not really on one side or the other in the debate about this language, and I've not looked at the language itself (though I've read this thread), but just because this is one of those things that bugs the philosophy prof in me...
Appeal to (or argument from) authority is only a fallacy if it's a non-authority in the matter at hand. It would be an informal fallacy if the expert in question were an expert on something else, but it's a valid argument for probability if a subject-matter expert is speaking to it.
Now, as Cainntear has pointed out, the marks at university may be an issue of broad knowledge and a well-argued standpoint. I just wanted to chip in on fallacies.
Carry on
Sorry, but I believe it remains an informal fallacy even within the body of knowledge of an authority. At least that is what Locke meant when addressing someone to respect and submit to an authority to accept the conclusion. While an authority might have a probability of truth, it lacks evidence of the actual authority's knowledge, particularly when it is an anonymous entity and/or as a body of 'wise men' [sic], nor has that body or anonymous individual been shown to actually support the conclusion at hand. These are broad-stroke appeals to anonymous authority because the OP got good grades on a thesis, not because of a statement directly from the horse's mouth.
(please to note my name dropping there. )
Splitting things here:
Ad Verecundiam can, per Locke, be misused, but it's inherently a statistical syllogism. See also http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoAuthority
In the case in question, I'd be more concerned about the connection of good grades to the correctness of the assertions than the anonymity, given the internet. I mean, unless you want everyone to dox themselves. We kind of have to give OP the benefit of the doubt that s/he did study at a particular, reputable faculty and got good grades, or we have to pretend that no one is an expert in anything.