Dear Fiona and list,
As I see it Don's assertion is plausible but defeasible. It is simply an appeal to expert opinion. I do not think we should defer to experts unquestioningly. It is important to critically question appeals to expert opinion. Douglas Walton provides a useful set of criticial questions to ask to evaluate appeals to expert opinion.
Expert E puts forward assertion A.
1. Expertise Question: How credible is E as an expert source?
2. Field question: Is E an expert in the field that A is in?
3. Opinion question: What did E assert that implies A?
4. Trustworthiness question: Is E personally reliable as a source
5. Consistency question: Is A consistent with what other experts assert?
6. Backup evidence question: Is E's assertion based on evidence?
Don wrote:
"he [Tim] did not have the right to redefine a well-known concept simply so that he could criticize it."
"he [Tim] distorts concepts to fit his rhetoric."
"He told me I was wrong about what cognitive science is. Well, I am often wrong about things, but not this one:"
Because Don's assertion is an appeal to expert opinion, the matter is best settled through dialogue based on a balance of considerations.
Unpleasentness aside, does Don's assertion stand up to criticism? I think it's plausible.
Best regards,
Luke
Luke Feast
Faculty of Health, Arts and Design | Swinburne University of Technology
Ph +61 3 9214 6165
[log in to unmask] | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/health-arts-design
(CRICOS Provider 00111D)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|