On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:29:03 GMT, in alt.astrology, Pedantus
<pedantus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Bob Officer wrote:
>> On 6 Dec 2006 13:04:47 -0800, in alt.astrology, "EHWollmann PMAFA"
>> <alchameth2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> A version of this article first appeared in the May issue of Horoscope
>>> Magazine, 1996.
>>
>> Being written in the past, doesn't automatically make it valid.
>>
>> It is a fallacy and an appeal to false authority.
>
>Yeah, we scientific types only suck up to True authorities....;)
Edmond's use of fallacies, appeal to false authority is a fairly
large issue.
Claims to be a "professional" astrologer, and uses a hobby
organization PMAFA as if it is a surety of professionalism of
efficiency, and some sort of licensing authority.
Claims publi****ng in a vanity magazine is some sort assurance that
the information is accurate or has any value.
Claim made years ago to be a professional counselor in practice for
30 years when simple math shows he couldn't have been a professional
counselor for the period claimed, as he would have been still in high
school. (Factually, his own admissions show him to have been a high
school drop out). Edmond can not have ever been licensed to offer
professional counsel for fee or free in either California or New
Mexico.
Claims of expertise based on once having a "security clearance" to
work in a defense manufacturing complex as labor, is also a appeal to
false authority. Security clearances are on a basis of *need to
know*. Most likely what Edmond had was a simple background check
required for all jobs touching most defense work. even janitors and
mop jockeys that work in plants working on Defense projects are
required to have simple background checks and fingerprints.
So when you start looking at Edmond's usenet articles they are rife
with logical fallacies...
--
Ak'toh'di
|
