Arbuthnot has four advanced degrees in mathematics. He has thirty years mathematics teaching and research experience. He frequently makes pronouncements about mathematics, and has been right nearly half the time. (That’s less than 50%)
An argument about mathematics based entirely on Arbuthnot's word would be a good argument.
An argument about mathematics based entirely on Arbuthnot's word would not be a good argument.
Bilabong is a renowned historian with degrees, qualifications and awards in history, and a very long track record of being right about difficult questions in European history.
An argument based entirely on Bilabong's word about how to run an avocado ranch would be reliable.
An argument based entirely on Bilabong's word about how to run an avocado ranch would not be reliable.
Columbia is a professor of nutritional science with a superb track record who just inherited a huge, failing pobblefruit ranch. (Nobody likes pobblefruit, but nothing else grows there.) Columbia says Pobblefruit rind contains an enzyme that allows people to eat all they want without getting fat. If people believe her, she'll make millions of dollars. If they don't, she'll go broke.
An argument based entirely on Columbia's word about pobblefruit rind would be a good argument.
An argument based entirely on Columbia's word about pobblefruit rind would not be a good argument.
Despard is an amateur historian with a mediocre track record who disagrees with Bilabong about an important point in European history. Bilabong has recently been exposed as a major pot-head and long-time dope dealer. Despard claims that this means we should not listen to Bilabong's claims about European history. He says that Bilabong's history with drugs invalidates his expertise.
Despard is right that Bilabong's history with drugs invalidates Bilabong's expertise.
Despard is wrong. Bilabong's history with drugs does not in any way invalidate his expertise.
Evangeline is a nutrionist who disagrees with Columbia about the effectiveness of St. Cuthbert's Lingere as a treatment for ennui. Columbia says it works, Evangeline says it doesn't work, and she also says that Columbia is only advocating St. Cuthbert's Lingere as a treatment for ennui because she must secretly own a St. Cuthbert's Lingere farm. Evangeline gives absolutely no evidence to support this claim about Columbia except that Columbia does advocate St. Cuthbert's Lingere as a treatment for ennui.
Evangeline is right that the fact Columbia advocates St. Cuthbert's Lingere as a treatment for ennui proves that Columbia secretly owns a St. Cuthbert's Lingere farm.
The mere that fact Columbia advocates St. Cuthbert's Lingere as a treatment for ennui absolutely does not prove that Columbia secretly owns a St. Cuthbert's Lingere farm.
Filly Buster is a political scientist with long experience, perfect credentials and a wonderful track record. When she hears about a new proposal for public financing of elections, she immediately declares that it will never work. When people ask her why, she just says "I have a gut feeling that it won't work. That's enough."
Filly Buster is right. Her otherwise unsupported gut feeling is more than enough to prove that this new proposal for public financing of elections will never work.
Filly Buster is wrong. Her gut feeling does not give us any logical reason to think that this new proposal for public financing of elections will never work.
Hoi Polloi is an activist agitating for a law against cat juggling. Her only argument is that "everybody knows cat juggling is morally wrong." The vast majority of the public confess to knowing almost nothing about cat juggling, but they're all convinced that it's morally wrong and should be illegal. Given that Hoi Polloi is right that (almost) everyone believes cat juggling is wrong.
The fact that most people believe that cat juggling is wrong proves that it is wrong.
The fact that most people believe that cat juggling is wrong does not give us any logical reason to think that cat juggling is wrong.
