Thanks a lot for this
Hardcastle . You’ve given me something I’ll enjoy replying.
As much as I appreciate your mentioning of the “Appeal to authority fallacy”, I must say that it isn’t in any way of minimal relevance.
Oh, a better way to point out where somebody used the “Appeal to authority fallacy” would be to point out Johnson or the former unknown member called “Dogo King” quoting a writer and saying that because said writer hasn’t heard of any case of a cougar killing a bison, then that means a cougar could never kill or has never in all of the world’s existence killed a full-grown bison.
Even setting aside the “Appeal to authority fallacy”, common sense alone can debunk that. There are a myriad of questions I could ask that same writer about whether they are aware of so and so taking place and they would very well give the same response “I don’t know of any case” and if I or even anyone were to take that with nativity, I would conclude that “well that means it cannot happen” or “that it has never happened.”
The problem with that is that you’re assuming the person you’re consulting is all-knowing, which is not the case. Obviously, on account of being a writer, the amount of knowledge at their disposal is much greater than what is available to the average person, so an experienced writer saying “I’m not aware of any case” isn’t the same thing as the average person saying those exact same words.
But at the same time, it’s not impossible for them not to be unaware of something, because they are STILL HUMAN, and just like they say “to err is human”, likewise “to be unaware of or not know something is also human”, seeing that there is no anyone can put on mortal frame and be said to be flawless in all his ways, just the same way nobody can be in human flesh and know all that has ever happened, even what happened before they were born. Johnson’s reference is the one that sounds more like an “Appeal to authority fallacy”, not mine, and I’ll still explain that.
The reason why people resort to the “Appeal to authority fallacy” is because they have an understanding which is actually rooted in some truth that an expert typically is in a better position to give views on a topic.
And that is based on an understanding of what it takes to even be accurately be referred to as an expert in the first place, that the word “expert” is a title of honour that isn’t just bestowed on anyone, but only on those who by years of study have attained a level where their views and knowledge can be in a sense “universally respected.”
That’s why people are very zealous to cosy up to whatever expert they can find to defend their points in an argument, to the point where it’s almost “hero worship.” And it’s all perfectly understandable.
It’s all based on the fact or knowledge that somebody worthy of being labelled with the title “expert” or “scientist” has gone on ahead of you and your “peers" (“peers” referring to the people you’re debating with at the moment, regardless of their age or experience relative to yours, which is why I put “peers" in quote because the people you’re debating with may not necessarily be your peers, in age or even other parameters) so that their view is taken with more seriousness.
It’s like for example, if a set of fifth graders that hang out, chill, work and do everything together are one day solving a problem in Maths, or Physics or Chemistry or whatever it is and they’re having difficulty with that problem, and it’s too hard for all of them to solve (not saying this would consistently be the case in reality, but it’s definitely not impossible and certainly isn’t unprecedented), and they figure out that they could take it to an eighth grader who they believe (and rightfully so) could solve it for them, seeing that he has once been in their shoes, he has passed through that stage.
That’s like a microcosm of “resorting to an expert” being played out by kids in school. Sure, the eighth grader may not be able to solve everything that they bring to him, seeing that there is something called “forgetfulness” which applies to everyone, but chances are he’ll be able to ease their burdens significantly so that what is left undone would be infinitesimal compared to what was done.
Now imagine if after approaching the eighth grader and he starts explaining to them the principles, the steps they might have overlooked, the concepts they might not have gotten a firm grasp of, one of them asks him “are you sure you know what you’re doing?” or says “it’s not like that” or just starts debating with the person they of their own will came to consult.
His mates are probably going to be like “what are you talking about bro? He knows this stuff way better than you do." Even the senior student is probably going to be thinking: (if he doesn’t actually voice it) “so why did you come to me if you knew how to do it yourself? Hell, I thought you were here to consult me?”
That’s what it feels like when you bring somebody who is generally more knowledgeable on a subject and one of the “learners” (people who are actually supposed to sit down and listen) starts debating.
In the same manner, an expert definitely couldn’t know EVERYTHING about the subject matter (that’s not the criterion for being an expert, that you know ALL there is too know), but they would definitely know substantially more about the whole entity (tiger for example) in general and maybe not specifically the particular trait of that entity (tiger claws, the example you gave) you and your goons are analysing or as you said “subjecting to scrutiny”, and hence their view or perspective would still be of some relevance.
Let me use an example that I believe you would be able to better relate with, an example where you would be the expert. If I and someone are having a debate about dogs, something that has to do with dogs, and then it’s clear to me that both of us are amateurs that aren’t 100% sure what we’re talking about, then I’m like “I have to find some credible source that can back me up" and then hurray, I remember that I have a friend on FoodChain called Antonio, and then I ask Antonio a question related to what I’ve been debating on.
Now, Antonio himself may not necessarily be interested in what we’re debating, but he would most certainly know more than both of us (I and my opponent) combined. He himself may not be keen on the topic, he might even look at us as immature kids and be like “LOL in 2023, you guys are still discussing this", but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the ACCURATE answer to my question. Just because he isn’t interested doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the knowledge, and even though to him I look immature, he’s probably going to be like “well, anything for a friend, I’ll just tell you anyways, if it makes you happy” and tell me, he does.
Now, I go back to my debater and dish out to him what Antonio dished out to me, and guess what? He’s still arguing (this would even be worse if we ended our last conversation with “you go and find whatever credible source you can while I’ll do the same”, but surprisingly he didn’t “do the same")! What do you think my reaction would be?
Is it strange for me to say “Dude, shut the hell up! I gave you information from someone who has been researching dogs for over 25 years, has been reading countless books specially devoted to dogs since he was a kid, has read books on other wild animals, is an ACTUAL hunter that uses bull arabs to hunt in Australia, so is relationship or dealings with dog isn’t/aren’t just theoretical, but practical, and AFTER YEARS OF STUDY is even about to author dog-devoted literature. Who the hell do you think you are to be saying he doesn’t know what he’s saying, you jackass that can’t even name a dog breed other than “German Shepherd” and “Pit bull.”” Hardcastle, don’t get a big head. (JK. More power to your elbow!)
You see that? I haven’t seen Hardcastle in the flesh, yet I feel called upon, I get a sense of duty to “defend his honour” as it were because I perceive what my opponent to be doing as disrespectful.
It’s as if they just ruled out all the years of work and study that Hardcastle gave to become what he has become today, like they effectively said “I don’t give a shit about all the years you’ve spent studying dogs, I don’t care what you say, yo can’t and won’t change my mind.” You tell me, who wouldn’t want to get their hands round such a person’s throat?
It doesn’t mean Antonio knows EVERYTHING there is to know about dogs (as a matter of fact, you’re writing a book, and every writer has to be a reader, otherwise where are they getting the knowledge they pen down from? So, you being a yet-to-become author is actually a sign that you’re an avid reader), but he knows MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more than what the average person or even average dog fan/enthusiast knows. He’s reached a stage where he isn’t just a dog knowledge learner, but a dog knowledge teacher, as an author is a teacher who uses his pen rather than mouth to teach. Just like a Master Shifu said to Po, “You are no longer a student of Kung Fu, you are Kung Fu.”
It feels more soothing, and something you can understand better when I imagine you as the expert doesn’t it?m
It’s just the principle “oh, I don’t get this, let me check out somebody who has gone ahead of me has to say about it.” For the most part, I think that’s what the “Appeal to authority fallacy” is for Internet debaters.
Now, let’s move on to the “it falls within the realm of possibility” part. I don’t think your assessment or take from “it falls within the realm of possibility” is balanced or honest.
What I perceive from what you’re saying is that the writer (Harold Danz) had an attitude of indifference, which honestly doesn’t sound realistic.
You’re saying that he probably was like “Well, I don’t know if these accounts are true, they don’t sound true, but at the same time, I can’t just declare them to be false. So, I’m between the devil and the deep blue sea and I’ll play smart and make life easier for myself by kind of “sitting on the fence” by saying “it falls within the realm of possibility” so that nobody would be able to ask me how I verified either claim. If anybody asks me, “how do you know the accounts are true?” or “how do you know they are false?”, I would simply reply them “hey Mr. or Miss. I didn’t say they were true or false, I simply said they fall within the realm of possibility, so neither of you can charge me with anything.” Haha, I’m a genius!”
I feel you’re implying that he had an attitude of laziness or an “I don’t really care, let me just write something down for the sake of writing” attitude. And honestly, no, why would he? Put yourself in his shoes for a second.
Would you do the same? I disagree that he didn’t give ANY THOUGHT to it at all, and was just like “let me write this down just to clear my head.”
Obviously, it’s not something he would have burnt the midnight oil over just to verify, thinking of what and what he can do to defend his view, but I don’t agree that no amount of discretion or reflection would have been put into it at all.
He should definitely have pondered on them even if minimally before coming to that conclusion. If it was something like a bobcat jumping unto the back of a bison, obviously he would have categorically stated that that was a lie. You don’t even need to be an expert to deduce that.
I feel he would have looked to see if there was any possibility whatsoever that a cougar could actually attempt an attack on a bison and get the upper hand. I actually think that at a point his thoughts might have drifted in the same direction as mine, that he might actually have thought about tigers and gaurs and been like “Well, tigers kill gaurs 6 to 7 times their size, it’s not irrational to expect something similar with cougars and bison seeing that it’s in both cases a big cat hunting a wild cattle beast. I believe it might actually be possible after all.”
Presenting those 2 cases required discretion and I doubt that’s something he would have overlooked and instead responded with “Nobody cares, as long as my book sells and I make money.”
This becomes more true when you considered that he has worked with both animals in the past, so it doesn’t even sound human (something any human would do) for him to just gloss over a subject like this.
So, yes, I do believe he would have given some amount of thought to it (that’s what any reasonable writer would have) and that his views and his statement is of great relevance.
Now, let’s go to “Why would he have shot the cougar if the bison was fine?” To answer this question, we need to look at and properly understand the context in which he took that action.
While you’re saying that shooting wild animals on sight was rampant and the order of the day, something that people in that time did for pleasure or sport, the question to ask and actually think about is whether that was the motivation for his action in this scenario.
So what we have here is an action (Daniel Boone killing the cougar) and a number of motivations, 2 in this case (whether he was motivated by a kind of “human gameness”, what was common in his day, OR whether he was motivated by human emotions).
The question is “which one was it?” Or rather, “which one was it more likely to have been?” which will be answered based on an understanding of how humans as beings work, how we operate.
I’ll explain to you why I stand firm in my belief that or maybe even why it was the second motivation and not the first.
If you insist that it was the first choice (“human gameness”), the problem is that you’d be be depriving a man of their humanity, making it look like their desires and habits override and come before their basic nature as a living thing. What do I mean? I’ll use a number of analogies
First Example: I happen to be a murderer (but not necessarily a serial killer) who kills in cold blood and comes out okay at the other end, and I’ve been in that career for years when one fateful day, another person just like me, a seasoned murderer who doesn’t know I myself am a murderer but thinks I’m a regular, civilian starts stalking me with the intention of killing me (A murderer about to murder a murderer. Nice play of words).
Let’s say we get into a garage and I’m fortunate to get wind of him just when he’s right behind me and about to stab me with his knife or shoot me with his gun, and I turn around and quickly bat it out of his hand and then the two of us tumble upon the floor and have a little scuffle that lasts about 2 minutes and ends when I manage to stretch out my hand to the spot where the weapon I threw out of his hand had fallen and use his own weapon against him. The same way you see it in movies.
Now, we’re given 2 options for why he killed his attacker: he killed him because he was himself a murderer after all OR he killed him because he was acting in self defence, something he would still have done even if he had never committed a single murder in his life.
It’s very obvious that the answer is the second reason. The argument that “he was a murderer himself after all, so it’s only normal for him to have killed someone who attacked him. If he wasn’t a murderer, he would have let himself get killed or he would inevitably have found a way to escape without killing his attacker. Someone who wasn’t already a habitual killer would have acted differently” would be meaningless.
Because, you’re putting his habits above his humanity which even though he has been “morally deformed” still entails self preservation. Just because you’re a murderer who gives death to people doesn’t mean you yourself have become so acquainted with death that you’d want to experience it yourself. A murderer, gives death, yet hates it themself.
In this scenario, it’s not because he was a murderer himself that he killed someone attempting to kill him, but because he’s still a human. No other human (that is in their right mind) would have done otherwise.
He might be a murderer, but he might also have a family member whom he loves. If he sees, that family member trying to commit suicide one day, he’s going to try and stop them because he doesn’t want to lose them.
You won’t say “he’s a murderer that takes people’s lives against their own will, why should he prevent someone who wants to take their life ON THEIR OWN WILL?” He’s still human and his humanity comes before his habit or lifestyle.
The “a regular human would have surrendered themself” argument is stupid for obvious reasons. Even if a regular human that had never held a gun before gets attacked by someone who obviously is going to kill them, there and then, they would throw away their “regularity” and would find a way to kill their attacker.
In this instance, you can’t say that his own murderous lifestyle which was the “order of the day" for him as an individual is what caused him to kill his own fellow murder. Even if he wasn’t a murderer before, he wouldn’t have acted differently. It’s something anyone with or without crime history would have done.
And if he gets caught a few days after and gets taken to court seeing that he would be recognised as a criminal himself, the last kill he made wouldn’t be made as a crime. He would be sentenced for every other kill he made before the last one, the last one doesn’t count as a crime.
Second Example: Let’s say a girl was born into a family of killers, and one day she got lured by a man whom she had met on social media who attempted to rape her in his house. As a killer she goes around with her gun everywhere, and so she took it to this man’s house. On getting to his house and seeing that the man is about to rape her, she quickly breaks free of his hold, and without thinking, shoots him.
Would you say “Why do you think it’s because he was going to kill her that she killed him first? She was a killer after all and belonged to a family of killers, it was only normal for her to kill a human being, there’s just this strange urgency to kill humans that she had”?
No, because in that very moment, she didn’t kill him as a killer, she killed him to protect her virginity. So, the fact that she was a killer isn’t the reason, most other ladies would have done the same (if they had a gun by their side).
Let’s go back to cougars and bison. Yes, in Daniel Boone’s time, hunting animals was a regular business, but in this particular case, it doesn’t appear that the normality of killing animals is what drove him to do it. It seems more like something born out of pity.
Come to think of it, if it was just about shooting animals, why not wait, and let the cougar kill the bison, then shoot the cougar afterwards and appropriate the bison kill so that you can eat it for breakfast, especially since you’re in the wilderness where there’s no constant food supply?
Doesn’t that sound like a smarter thing to do? Or just shoot both animals and be like “Well, the bison was already very badly injured, it would most likely be the next target when another predator attacks and its injuries would condemn it to death, so let me just deliver an 18th century version of “euthanasia” and shoot the bison so that it doesn’t go on suffering from the wounds it received and later die a painful death at the jaws of the next predator that will inevitably strike the herd"?
But, no what do we have? Daniel Boone shooting only the cougar and leaving the bison to go free. It seems to me that the “heavens” had chosen Daniel Boone to save the bison that day rather than him just doing what was normal in his time, shooting animals for sport. It clearly was something he did as a result of his emotions getting the better of him, not something he did because he lived in the 18th century.
Besides, we’re later told that they met a wolf pack following the bison herd, that same herd that the cougar had disrupted.
Why didn’t he shoot the wolves if it was just about shooting animals, especially predators indiscriminately? Maybe because the wolves weren’t actually posing any threat, but were just looking for easy pickings as they were said to be doing in the account.
There’s no reason to believe that if Daniel Boone had seen that same cougar that day just resting on a rock or a tree, that he would have shot it. It was the cougar’s attack on the bison that ended its own life.
In the end, there is
EVERY indication that the cougar was going to succeed. In the first case, you can make the argument that John Hunter had already premeditated that he could use the cougar’s skin as camouflage which was why he shot it, and even that wouldn’t necessarily be correct, because the camouflage idea was probably an after thought, while he was probably just trying to be a hero at the present moment. But, you can still make that as an argument.
In the second case however, you cannot. What did Daniel Boone do with the cougar afterwards? What happened other than him seeing the bison go free? The cougar was of no use to him, but it appeared seeing the bison escape was.
While old accounts tend to arouse skepticism, some are most likely just stories told around campfires while others might actually be real. The accounts of dogs killing tigers most likely falls within the first bracket seeing that there is nothing in the real world that resembles that.
Cougars and bison on the other hand are in the second bracket because there is something in the real world that resembles it, that being tigers and gaurs. What is a tiger? A big cat. What is a gaur? A wild cattle beast. What is a cougar? A big cat. What is a bison? A wild cattle beast.
Tiger-gaur relationships just mean that the idea of a cougar killing a bison is not something without precedent. If it happened, it wouldn’t be the first time a big cat killed a wild cattle beast 6 to 7 times its size. That’s all I’m saying.
Wow! This took FOOOOREEEVEER to write.
