@Shouperflous — Indeed. You “must be misunderstanding”.1) My goal is not to ” get [my] opponents to shut up”. My goal is to cause persons making evidence-free claims to support those claims with evidence. This is the opposite of causing someone to “shut up”; it is prompting someone to keep talking and provide evidence.2) You appear to also misunderstand the “argument from authority”. The argument from authority refers to an appeal to false authority on the topic at hand or a putatively authoritative person opining on a matter while failing to engage with the evidence at hand. A citation to an authoritative source on the norms of ‘the rationality community’ (e.g. The Sequences) to the effect that ‘it is a norm of ‘the rationality community’ that one responds to a challenge for evidence or withdraws the claim in dispute’ is not an appeal to false authority.Ref. Given Hitchens’s razor, I infer that that is, or should be, OBVIOUS to any ‘rationalist’ that evidence-free claims, when challenged, must be supported with evidence or withdrawn.
Argument from authority does not require the authority be false, it requires that the authority be, itself, used as “evidence” of a claim. Looking for “Magisterial” i.e. “authoritative” rebuttal to cite in the future seems like looking for some “authority” on what rationality means to throw at someone, not unlike the “Hitchen’s Razor” you’re citing as a “bitch slap” which is.… odd.
@Shouperflous: Wrong again — “[The fallacy of the] Argument from authority… requires that the [statement by the] authority be, itself, used as “evidence” [to support] a claim” — FALSE.Example demonstrating @Shouperflous is misunderstanding the characteristics of the Argument from Authority —I claim that “the easiest person to fool is yourself”.As evidence for my claim I cite Richard Feynman, see”.This is a well formed not fallacious argument.Therefore this is not fallacious use of Argument from Authority.QED: @Shouperman does not understand the Argument from Authority.Ref. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Surely_You_re_Joking_Mr_Feynman_Adventur/7papZR4oVssC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+first+principle+is+that+you+must+not+fool+yourself+and+you+are+the+easiest+person+to+fool.++Richard+P.+Feynman&pg=PA343&printsec=frontcover
The thing is, that’s not a well-formed, non-fallacious argument. Your “evidence” in this scenario consists entirely of the fact that someone famous has also made the claim; that’s the very definition of an argument from authority!
It’s also not an argument, let alone an argument from authority. It’s a claim. Also, your edit of my statement changes the actual meaning of the statement, it doesn’t clarify it in any way. I said what I meant and was more correct in that instance. Argument from authority has to do with the authority, not the statement by the authority. Your edit demonstrates a fundamental failure to grasp what “argument from authority” really means.
@Shouperfluous: If you don’t like my clarification of your statement then I challenge you to rewrite your claim that “Argument from authority does not require the authority be false, it requires that the authority be, itself, used as ‘evidence’ of a claim.” so that the statement makes sense and is responsive to my search for a “magisterial rebuttal, that I can cite in the future”.1) Do you really not understand that a “magisterial rebuttal” is a statement from a person who speaks authoritatively by the topic being addressed? Do you really believe that a “magisterial rebuttal” entails only “the authority be, itself [cf. a statement by the authority], used as “evidence” of a claim”? REALLY?2) “Argument from authority [sic. the fallacy of the appeal to false authority] has to do with the authority”—FALSE. As we cannot read minds, reference to an authority (a real authority on the topic at hand or a false authority) of necessity reference a statement, claim, or argument made by the authority and not the authority himself.Ref. “[The fallacy of the] Argument from authority… requires that the [statement by the] authority be, itself, used as “evidence” [to support] a claim”