User talk:FL or Atlanta

Welcome!
Hi, FL or Atlanta. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  04:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the welcome! :D FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I don't want you to think that disagreement necessarily generates animosity. I also wanted to respond to your point about science here, so as not to go off-topic on the article talk page. Our discussion there should be limited to discussion of changes to the article, not to discussions about the subject of the article.

Let's assume that a scientist want to perform an experiment. For the sake of argument, let us say that she chooses to test the effects drug Q has on the cholesterol level of patients. She sets up a control group and a study group. She hires nurses to administer the drug and placebo, and to collect blood samples for analysis before, during and after the trial. She performs the experiment, wrangles the data, writes a paper and submits that paper for peer review. It is accepted, published, and other scientists (quite rightfully) set up their own studies to check her results. Now, throughout this process, appeals to authority take a major role, as illustrated by the following (incomplete, I assure you) list of examples:
 * The journal who accepted her paper for peer review relied on the authority of the scientist's university in acknowledging that the scientist was qualified to write such a paper.
 * The scientist relied upon the authority of the hired nurses to ensure that the administration of the drugs and placebo, and the drawing of blood was done correctly, in a way that will not compromise the data.
 * The scientist relied upon the authority of the manufacturer of the equipment used that it will produce the data she needs.
 * The scientist relied upon the authority of the technicians who serviced that equipment that it is currently operating within acceptable parameters.
 * The scientists trying to duplicate her results relied upon the authority of nurses, technicians and equipment manufacturers as well.
 * The journal (as well as other journals in the field) relied upon the authority of the universities of those other scientists that they, too, are qualified to submit their results for peer review.

That's not all, though. When you have your car repaired (assuming you don't do it yourself), you rely upon the authority of the mechanic that it will be done correctly. (If you do it yourself, you rely upon the authority of whoever taught you, the tool manufacturers, the part manufacturers, etc.) When you log onto WP, you rely on the authority of a certificate authority to ensure than you're not sending your password to a hacker. When you add a reference to an article, you rely on the authority of the source that the information contained is accurate. When you debate a position with another editor, you rely upon the authority behind the links you provide to make your case. When you go to bed, you rely on the authority of your alarm clock manufacturer that it will continue to perform as advertised, waking you up the next day. When you pull over to let an ambulance pass on your way to work the next day, you rely on the authority of the person who created the driving test you took years ago that the law requires such of you.

I understand what you are saying, and am not arguing that the scientific method doesn't require experimentation. I am pointing out that the rejection of all authority is a logically unsound proposition, and impossible to implement in any case. When the authority is an expert in the subject in question, it is not a fallacy. Without such a concession, modern civilization would be impossible to maintain. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  04:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * “The journal who accepted her paper for peer review relied on the authority of the scientist's university in acknowledging that the scientist was qualified to write such a paper.”


 * That wouldn’t be true. You don’t even need a degree to publish in most journals, and journal accept papers written by those with irrelevant degrees (it might be in computer science for example, but they’re publishing in an astronomy journal).


 * Do you think that’s a bad practice?


 * “The scientist relied upon the authority of the hired nurses to ensure that the administration of the drugs and placebo, and the drawing of blood was done correctly, in a way that will not compromise the data.”


 * No one’s appealing to the nurses’ authority to give evidence for a position, and it shouldn’t be automatically assumed that they all performed their duties correctly. That’s why repetition is so important in science: you’re never going to be able to do something exactly the same way twice. Unseen errors always occur. That’s why you need to do it so many times and by so many people that the chances they’re all making the same mistakes is low.


 * “The scientist relied upon the authority of the manufacturer of the equipment used that it will produce the data she needs.”


 * Which is unwise to trust uncritically. Papers have been redacted before because it turned out the software that was used had problems.


 * A good experiment tests every variable it can – including the tools.


 * “The scientist relied upon the authority of the technicians who serviced that equipment that it is currently operating within acceptable parameters. The scientists trying to duplicate her results relied upon the authority of nurses, technicians and equipment manufacturers as well.”


 * Same as above with the nurses. These aren’t appeals to authority in the sense of argument, and it is unwise to assume they were right without being sure of it.


 * “When you have your car repaired (assuming you don't do it yourself), you rely upon the authority of the mechanic that it will be done correctly.”


 * Not really – I just hope he makes it work, or else I’ll get my money back.


 * But I wouldn’t assume based on the mechanic’s authority that he did it right. If I started driving it and my RPM meter was telling me it was constantly above 4000, I wouldn’t just sit back and think “well he’s the authority, I’ve gotta trust he did it right”. I’d use the evidence my tools were giving me to support the position that his repairs were done incorrectly.


 * “you rely upon the authority of whoever taught you, the tool manufacturers, the part manufacturers, etc”


 * In the job that I do do, that isn’t true at all. I’ve seen in my work that some of the stuff I was taught is incorrect and different techniques produce a better result, so I change my practices based on the evidence of the results. I’d be an awful worker if I just said “well I must be wrong, this isn’t how I was trained – I’ll keep doing it how I learnd”.


 * And my tools (they’re software tools) do things wrong or make errors or report false things all the time. I look at the evidence itself and confirm they worked and that they’re giving me accurate information.


 * “When you add a reference to an article, you rely on the authority of the source that the information contained is accurate.”


 * Only because Wiki policy mandates proving things this way.


 * “When you debate a position with another editor, you rely upon the authority behind the links you provide to make your case.”


 * Not at all. My sources are fair game for criticism, and if someone were to convince me with evidence they were wrong, I’d stop using them.


 * I base my cases on the evidence itself, much of which is reported in links and books.


 * “When you go to bed, you rely on the authority of your alarm clock manufacturer that it will continue to perform as advertised, waking you up the next day.”


 * I base that conclusion on the observation that does that every day, so its likely working correctly.


 * But I don’t assume that based on some “authority” the manufacturer has. And if I absolutely definitely need to be awake at a certain for something special, I’ll set multiple alarms in case something happens to one of them.


 * “When you pull over to let an ambulance pass on your way to work the next day, you rely on the authority of the person who created the driving test you took years ago that the law requires such of you.”


 * No I don’t – the law code is available publicly, and you can see police punishing people who don’t pull over.


 * I think you’re just talking about yourself here with all of this. You might never check or verify what you’re taught, but I certainly do.


 * “Without such a concession, modern civilization would be impossible to maintain.”


 * Only with your extremely bizarre definition of “authority”, where alarm clocks are authorities and we need to trust everything we hear.


 * It sounds like you would’ve been a firm believer in the nonexistent chromosome, no matter what even your own eyes told you just like so many others. If science dies, it’ll be this sort of philosophy that kills it. FL or Atlanta (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are flatly wrong about virtually everything you've stated as fact. I'm done here. I only bothered to respond because I thought you were a reasonable person, however you are quickly convincing me otherwise. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no need for insults - I can tell you're a reasonable person, but it seems impatience might be getting the better of you right now. Why not step away from these discussions for a bit and then return? Getting the pages as good as they can be is stressful work sometimes. Personally I'd love to continue this discussion! FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding reason. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "thread name".The discussion is about the topic Talk:Argument from authority. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  22:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Input requested in dispute resolution
Hi, I'm TheLogician112. I'll be your mediator in the discussion on argument from authority with MjolnirPants. I noticed your notification here didn't have a proper link. We'd love you to come to Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and give the dispute as you see it to help this dispute come to a resolution and form a consensus. TheLogician112 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

AN/I notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin attention needed at Appeal to authority. Thank you. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  17:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Source you mention on the Argument from Authority Talk
Hey, is it possible you could cite the source for: "'Of prime concern for the issue…are the rules that apply to the researchers themselves. A vocal minority effectively argue their own research transcends empiricism, stating that the public should accept their word by virtue of the fact that it came from one of their standing, and reject it only when others at their level do so. Though the ad verecundiam has such advocates, their expertise resides largely outside of the field of the philosophy of science…Philosophers of science remain in broad unanimity that it is the facts themselves that bring the proof. Those who use their position to express otherwise are…going against their own teachings by…disregarding the consensus of the field on which they speak.'" on the argument from authority page? I'd cite it but that'd be dishonest since I don't have the work its in so technically my true source is you. I think it'd go a long way towards resolving the page's current issues. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

After chatting with MjolnirPants
I'm not going to do anything to you, and I also won't ask anyone else to (for details, check MjolnirPants' talk, section "Arguments from authority"), but your tone is really paving the way for someone to ask that you be blocked for general rudeness and incivility. Please calm down before anything happens to you, whether from me or from someone else. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be misinterpreting what I've written - tone is very hard to convey over text, afterall. What seems to be rude or uncivil? FL or Atlanta (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * FLoA, when someone disagrees with me, I generally try to read their comments in a variety of tones. I imagine them angry, polite and formal, friendly and informal, passionate, confused, etc, etc. Whenever I read your comments and try to put your words to different voices, they always end up sounding smarmy, condescending and dismissive. Just because you haven't cursed anyone out doesn't mean you haven't been quite rude.
 * Examples include your constant reverts of edits you don't agree with, your refusal to participate in discussions about your edits, your dishonesty about the state of the article (claiming it was "my" version when you damn well knew you'd been editing it), your dishonesty about wanting to keep all of OP's edits (the edits you kept reverting were mostly his), your repeated denial of what the sources explicitly say, your removal of RS sources which disagree with you, your biased wording of the question in the RfM (not to mention the fact that you went for an RfM after being explicitly told that you were wrong by an admin), your accusations of incompetence against the admin (made worse by your defensiveness against any accusations against you).... We don't judge an editor's civility based only on his or her words, but upon their actual behavior, as well. Your behavior leaves a lot to be desired. You may not see this, but everyone involved really is trying to help you avoid sanctions, not trying to railroad you into them. Contrast your situation with Perfect Orange Sphere's, and you might start to understand. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Examples include your constant reverts of edits you don't agree with
 * The page is on your version right now, and any time I reverted something it was to build a consensus version that took previous comments into effect.
 * your refusal to participate in discussions about your edits
 * Says the guy who rejected a mediation attempt after a few hours P:
 * your dishonesty about the state of the article (claiming it was "my" version when you damn well knew you'd been editing it)
 * I already refuted this accusation
 * your dishonesty about wanting to keep all of OP's edits
 * I never said I agree with everything the guy says. But in terms of a future consensus version, his contributions should definitely feature heavily.
 * your repeated denial of what the sources explicitly say, your removal of RS sources which disagree with you
 * I'd say we've got some WP:POT going on here...
 * not to mention the fact that you went for an RfM after being explicitly told that you were wrong by an admin
 * Its not like it was in arbitration. He hasn't checked out all the discussions and sources we've been having, and he isn't actively participating in the issue. He's said my behavior's alright. An admin isn't some superbeing, they're regular editors like you and me. FL or Atlanta (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Your view of this issue is so far removed from reality that it boggles my mind. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FL_or_Atlanta. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  03:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What's with all this stuff about admins and perpetually trying to get people punished and such? I think you're letting frustration about the dispute get to you. It'll all be fixed soon in mediation. Don't make it a personal thing, just stay focused on the content and the article. We've got everyone ready for the table, we'll all sit down with a mediator and get a great version made! Then everything will be done. Making it personal can only hurt that process. FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The AN/I
I'm not sure if you're unable to get on Wikipedia for life reasons, or have simply stopped editing. I wanted to post this link here so that you can see where everyone stood on the issue. Just to summarize: Note that an AN/I watcher who's commented on a number of threads involved himself after that archived version linked above, and he seemed to support you. I don't think his or her support is worth much, or likely to change anything, but if you think that's worth investigating, you have the right. I'll post a link to the archived version here as soon as the thread is archived. Until then, this link will take you to the thread to read what has been written since.
 * I proposed a topic ban.
 * Nyttend supported a topic ban.
 * Robert McClennon suggested more Dispute Resolution, but also agreed that a topic ban might be appropriate (he said it was his second choice).
 * Original Position said he felt you shouldn't be banned from the topic outright, just stopped from changing the article the way you have been. Later, he recused himself from expressing an opinion on what should be done, citing the content dispute as affecting his judgement.

I'm content to not continue to push for a topic ban. I know I will probably regret this, but I've always been willing to start over with others. Perfect Orange Sphere took the message after he caught a 24 hour block, and I'm not convinced you won't take the message after a couple of voices (including an admin) opined that you should be topic banned. Note that if you continue to push your interpretation, this is the most likely outcome. The next time, I will follow through with DRN before going to AN/I. Then, I will allow you to ignore the inevitable results of that discussion so that I can formally request a topic ban, using those diffs as evidence that you can't be trusted to edit philosophy articles. The reason I tell you this is because, if telling you this changes how you will react, then my goals are accomplished.

I know you won't believe me, but I'd much rather help you than see you punished. As long as you avoid changing the article in ways that don't reflect the sources, I will be more than happy to discuss and address any concerns you have at the article's talk page. I'm not sure what this message is worth, as previous similar messages I've given you have gone unheeded. But I'm not about to stop trying everything in my power to improve this article. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  15:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dispute at Argument from Authority
I have some thoughts on why you are getting so much push back at Argument from Authority and it appears you have been taken to AN/I as well. I would rather discuss by email in private rather than in public where I have to be very careful about everything I say. You have no email address published, so that's not an option. I'm on the fence about whether to discuss here on your talk page. Part of the issue is that I do not want to get too further invested on whether the 24 chromosome example is or is not included: It's not that important to me and if I talk more about it with you others might cite that, even though it is not on the article talk page. I think I have been on Wiki much longer, and I have seen many situations like your own, where one editor (or a few editors) is certain they are making very valid points and cannot understand why something that seems clear as day is rejected. And when they keep arguing they end up getting punished, either blocked, topic banned or even banned from Wikipedia and don't understand why. I have seen it in a number of venues and different subject areas. It's very common on Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza
I've reverted your removal of sourced content there, as it doesn't seem to be based on examining reputation of the sources. If you have an argument for why a Routledge encyclopedia and some of the leading names in Islamic studies should be classified as fringe, please take it to talk. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like its that time again
Ready to deal with these obsessive lunatics again? Thanks for always working so hard on the page! Apparently not even this very generous consensus version is enough to please them though. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Happened this same time of year too last time FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't it funny how the people who love appeals to authority suddenly don't seem to put much stock into the authority of sources that disagree with them? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * lol yeah its basically "appeal to whoever will make a page I want" FL or Atlanta (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that the reliable sources don't actually disagree, at all. They all agree that knowledgeable people exist and that we call those people authorities and that they are more likely to be correct than someone who is not knowledgeable. Endercase (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are sources right there that directly say arguing from authority is a fallacy and that say just because a so-called authority says something doesn't make it probably true like your intro says. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no sources that say that all authorities are wrong simply for being authorities. Additionally the LEDE doesn't say that appeals to "So-called" authorities are valid, it says making appeals to recognised and knowledgeable authorities are valid. I have updated the LEDE once again to make this more clear. The sources often are split on whether an "appeal to authority" is valid or not, this is because they are also split on the definition of "appeal to authority". All of them agree that knowledgeable people know things (valid appeal) and that false authorities shouldn't be appealed to (invalid appeal). The LEDE y'all keep removing is meant to help convey that idea as mentioned by its cited sources. I honestly think we agree on the fundamentals and are having an error in communication. I think y'all may associate the term "authority" with popularity. Whereas the terms Authority and Expert are actually relativistic terms defined as people who possess more skills or knowledge than the person making the appeal and the person/people being appealed to. And are not defined though another appeal to authority such as degree or other such thing. Such secondary (or further abstracted) appeals of authority (an appeal of authority based on an appeal of authority...) are different matter and may be invalid. Endercase (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked again
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.

This is because of your continued disruptive editing at Argument from authority, despite the warning that I gave before the first time I blocked you. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)