Thurman Munson Hall of Fame? And other careers cut short.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

The opinion of experts matters, is the deciding factor, as to who has, in fact, actually gotten in. It is not relevant to who should be in if standards are consistent (the underlying assumption when we have most hypothetical debate about whether X belongs in the Hall, as obviously we do not have a vote). A thing is not so or reasonable because X or Y believes it. WHO supports a position lends great rhetorical and sophistic support and will usually find popular support, but it's not evidence that that position is correct or the best one to take.

"Craig Biggio is better than Ken Griffey Jr. because Bill James said so" is a bad reason. "Craig Biggio is better than Ken Griffey Jr. because the small differences all ad up to produce more valuable, as evidenced by X, Y, Z metrics" is a reasonable argument to make, using provable actual facts to construct a proper argument for the position.

An argument requires proof, evidence, reason (depending on the arbitrary or not arbitrary nature of the discussion - hard proof shows Ty Cobb had a better batting average than R.J. Reynolds, reason to make a HOF case) to make itself, not appeal to expert Y or experts Z. Experts are not inherently correct, it's not a real reason or proof of the point that group Z agrees with you or agrees with me (or in this case, us as we seem to have the same position on the issue).

Harold Baines, for our most recent ridiculous example, is not a good HOF choice because the experts said he was. He either was or was not on some grounds of reason.

Most complex legal cases involve opinions of experts. The consensus for decades has been that such opinions are helpful to the finder of fact if certain requirements are met. In fact as we speak I am reviewing an expert report. Perhaps I should move to strike it on the basis that it's an improper appeal to authority?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Most complex legal cases involve opinions of experts. The consensus for decades has been that such opinions are helpful to the finder of fact if certain requirements are met. In fact as we speak I am reviewing an expert report. Perhaps I should move to strike it on the basis that it's an improper appeal to authority?

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.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

I am saying we should focus on the reasons he is or is not deserving of being in the HOF. The fact that the voters did not vote for him is not a reason he is or is not deserving - it is irrelevant who makes the argument. An argument is not valid or true or reasoned because I make it or you make it or a HOF voter makes it.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

You can believe that focusing on the actual reasoned argument rather than who makes it is an appeal to authority, but that is plainly factually false. We've hit the point of complete ridiculousness again. If a conman says something, that does not make it false. If the world's foremost expert says something, that does not make it true. In both cases there is an actual reason it is true or false and you know that very well. There's nothing reasonable to say to this lol

[Peter_Spaeth]

Again, you are going back to factual statements and I agree, something is either true or false independent of the speaker. But in matters of opinion, where there is no right and wrong, or true or false (except at the extremes perhaps), or where we aren't at the point yet we can conclusively prove something true or false, then I think others' opinions do count for something. And whose opinion it is matters. If it's a difference of opinion on a matter involving a virus between the world's leading virologist and a chiropractor, if I can't decide based on the arguments themselves, I might give more weight to the virologist. If that's an appeal to authority, and I don't think so, so be it. I'll give you the last word.

So in this context, whether Munson belongs clearly has no right and wrong answer, so if I'm undecided after hearing the merits arguments, it might matter to me that 1000 baseball writers said no, more than that 1000 fans who loved him as a kid said yes.