[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I know that you know the rules of a court room are not the same thing as reason. I certainly hope that your expert is there to present a real, constructed argument using facts rather than stating "I am an expert of X, therefore this is true" and resting it there. I hope he is saying something like "I am an expert in X. Because of A, B and C reasons it is my opinion that..." instead, a legitimate argument. You can try to twist it into countering an argument that all opinions from experts are invalid, but this is not the claim made nor is that what an appeal to authority is. The argument must be one from reasons, not simply appealing to being an expert.

Both aspects are relevant which is my point. Certainly, an expert will explain in detail the basis of his or her opinion, but equally importantly, will give his or her qualifications and experience to render that opinion. From experience I would say both aspects are equally important.

You say you are not making an appeal to authority argument, but when you say we should disregard the opinions of all experts who have weighed in on HOF votes, and focus solely on the numbers or other merits, I think you are making such an argument or a species of one. For example, if the five leading experts on a particular disease opine that a certain treatment works, in addition to considering the substance of their argument, I would give weight to the fact of their opinions.