You’re confused about what an “appeal to authority” actually is.
An appeal to authority is saying “X is true because this person said so.” That’s not what’s happening here. What’s happening is people treating expert opinion as evidence, not a verdict.
You say you don’t want appeals to authority, then you immediately offer your own opinion and expect people to take it seriously. Why? On what basis? Because it’s your judgment?
That’s the funny part. The moment you state an opinion, you’re asking others to weigh your credibility against someone else’s. You don’t escape authority, you just replace it with yourself.
Yegge’s opinion has weight because of his track record. It can still be wrong. Mine can be wrong. Yours can be wrong. That’s why people compare opinions instead of pretending they live in a vacuum.
Ignoring expert opinion entirely isn’t “independent thinking.” It’s just choosing to be uninformed and calling it a virtue.
I would’ve taken this response more seriously if it weren’t written with LLM assistance.
Regardless, it’s a lot of words to again say “they are famous, so consider them more seriously” despite the obvious scam being perpetuated via crypto. The appeal to authority is you stating their credentials first, and none of the deductions you claim one should make from merit.
It wasn’t LLM assisted. That accusation is just a way to avoid dealing with the point.
You keep restating a position no one is taking. No one said “they’re famous, therefore right.” That’s something you invented so you don’t have to argue against what was actually said.
Credentials don’t make an argument true. They explain why an opinion isn’t noise. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make you principled, it just makes you incurious.
If there’s an obvious scam, spell it out. If the reasoning is flawed, point to the step where it fails. You haven’t done either.
So far all you’ve contributed is tone policing, motive guessing, and now AI paranoia.
You’re still not responding to what I actually said.
No one claimed “X said it’s good, therefore it’s good.” The point was that ignoring what experienced people say entirely is just as dumb as following them blindly.
You told me to “think for myself.” Great. Thinking for yourself doesn’t mean pretending expert opinion doesn’t exist. It means weighing it against your own understanding. That’s literally how learning works.
Calling it a “ChatGPT list” is just you dodging the question. If those people are wrong, explain why. If some are right for bad reasons, name them. Laughing and changing the subject isn’t an argument.
You’re shadowboxing a strawman and congratulating yourself for winning.
The irony is thick here. You’re mocking people for “following,” while repeating one of the oldest, laziest superiority tropes on the internet and congratulating yourself for it.
Treating any appeal to authority as invalid isn’t critical thinking. It’s simplistic. Authority isn’t a command to believe something, it’s evidence. One piece of the puzzle.
And here’s the part you keep skipping: your own reasoning is also just an opinion. It’s fallible, incomplete, and shaped by your experience. The difference is that, on HN, most people don’t have much of a track record for others to weigh.
When someone has decades of relevant experience, that doesn’t make them right. It does mean their opinion carries more information than that of an anonymous commenter with no reputation beyond a username and a tone.
You’re confused about what an “appeal to authority” actually is.
An appeal to authority is saying “X is true because this person said so.” That’s not what’s happening here. What’s happening is people treating expert opinion as evidence, not a verdict.
You say you don’t want appeals to authority, then you immediately offer your own opinion and expect people to take it seriously. Why? On what basis? Because it’s your judgment?
That’s the funny part. The moment you state an opinion, you’re asking others to weigh your credibility against someone else’s. You don’t escape authority, you just replace it with yourself.
Yegge’s opinion has weight because of his track record. It can still be wrong. Mine can be wrong. Yours can be wrong. That’s why people compare opinions instead of pretending they live in a vacuum.
Ignoring expert opinion entirely isn’t “independent thinking.” It’s just choosing to be uninformed and calling it a virtue.
I would’ve taken this response more seriously if it weren’t written with LLM assistance.
Regardless, it’s a lot of words to again say “they are famous, so consider them more seriously” despite the obvious scam being perpetuated via crypto. The appeal to authority is you stating their credentials first, and none of the deductions you claim one should make from merit.
It wasn’t LLM assisted. That accusation is just a way to avoid dealing with the point.
You keep restating a position no one is taking. No one said “they’re famous, therefore right.” That’s something you invented so you don’t have to argue against what was actually said.
Credentials don’t make an argument true. They explain why an opinion isn’t noise. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make you principled, it just makes you incurious.
If there’s an obvious scam, spell it out. If the reasoning is flawed, point to the step where it fails. You haven’t done either.
So far all you’ve contributed is tone policing, motive guessing, and now AI paranoia.
4 replies →
I don't get it, either. There's an entire class of people on here who just run around looking for anyone to lead them.
I had a guy crash out after I told him that "so and so said Thing was good" was not sufficient to say whether Thing was good or not.
I told him he needed to develop enough skill to determine that for himself or he'd constantly fall for hype.
My dude pasted a ChatGPT list of engineers who had ever said anything about LLMs and was like ARE THEY ALL WRONG??
... did you listen to nothing I said? lol
You’re still not responding to what I actually said.
No one claimed “X said it’s good, therefore it’s good.” The point was that ignoring what experienced people say entirely is just as dumb as following them blindly.
You told me to “think for myself.” Great. Thinking for yourself doesn’t mean pretending expert opinion doesn’t exist. It means weighing it against your own understanding. That’s literally how learning works.
Calling it a “ChatGPT list” is just you dodging the question. If those people are wrong, explain why. If some are right for bad reasons, name them. Laughing and changing the subject isn’t an argument.
You’re shadowboxing a strawman and congratulating yourself for winning.
The reason is the crypto pump & dump - literally no other reasoning is required for my personal conclusion.
3 replies →
[dead]
The irony is thick here. You’re mocking people for “following,” while repeating one of the oldest, laziest superiority tropes on the internet and congratulating yourself for it.
Treating any appeal to authority as invalid isn’t critical thinking. It’s simplistic. Authority isn’t a command to believe something, it’s evidence. One piece of the puzzle.
And here’s the part you keep skipping: your own reasoning is also just an opinion. It’s fallible, incomplete, and shaped by your experience. The difference is that, on HN, most people don’t have much of a track record for others to weigh.
When someone has decades of relevant experience, that doesn’t make them right. It does mean their opinion carries more information than that of an anonymous commenter with no reputation beyond a username and a tone.
4 replies →