Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor
No it isn't.
|
Here's a bit from logicallyfallacious.com that you might want to wrap your head around:
Quote:
|
Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities.
|
In the matter of NHL coaching, Timbit is a credible authority.
Quote:
|
That never happened ;"I didn't know we had so many shootout experts" isn't pointing out anything.
|
It is pointing out by means of sarcasm that the people complaining loudest about the team's shootout choices are not, in fact, experts. When Timbit went on to mention ‘unsubstantiated opinions’, he was making his criticism specific and explicit.
The particular opinions that appeared to draw his sarcasm were the criticism of the coaches for using Huberdeau and Andersson in the shootout. Other posters have already pointed out how this criticism was unwarranted, based on easily available data about the players' shootout records. At that point, it is already established that the opinion of those critics was unsubstantiated. Timbit was calling attention to that point. As an expert in the subject, well apprised of the data that have been made available to everyone in the thread, he is perfectly entitled to do that.
It's unfortunate for you if you're unable to discern any of that.
