Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
I agree. But in this particular context jlousa appealed to someone with legal knowledge. And rightly so, because the argument being made was a legal one. Unlike a normal argument based on natural reasoning from common knowledge (which we can all judge for ourselves), evaluating the soundness of a legal argument requires special knowledge of law and legal principles. Thus, just as it is relevant to a layman whether a person making claims about medicine is a doctor, so it is relevent to him whether a person making claims about law is a lawyer. Hence, the reference to my legal background. When viewed in proper context, therefore, such a reference is not pretentious but only logical.
|
Sorry, I must have missed his comment. However, one can still evaluate the soundness of an argument without making reference to one's background. If one has the requisite knowledge and background, it will be evident in the evaluation of the argument (eg, citation of appropriate authority, proper application of background knowledge, etc). Credentials by themselves mean little and don't carry any weight. There are plenty of people with advanced degrees, doctors and lawyers alike, who are mistaken about facts and have poor judgment (I'm not saying that about you, but rather just making the point). There are also plenty of people with little advanced education who possess tremendous specialized knowledge and who can make arguments and evaluate their soundness in a far superior fashion (a few of them even teach in universities). As far as a someone else asking for comments from someone who is schooled in a particular topic, that reflects that person's own biases about knowledge and authority and shouldn't factor into your arguments. But I digress.
Threaded Mode