One Farmers point of view

[artie]

Google it,

OK

An argument from authority, also known as an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone uses a person's authority to support their argument instead of the person's reasoning. Here are some examples of arguments from authority:

• A mentor's opinion: "My mentor, who holds a PhD in philosophy, said philosophy is the most challenging academic discipline. That's why I decided to study art history".
  

• A nutritionist's book: "I read a book by a nutritionist who says all carbs are bad. That's why I avoid them completely".
  
  
• A lawyer's opinion: "My friend's a lawyer, and she also said that fair-use law is a sham".
  
  
• A famous actor's endorsement: "The PrestigeX4000, the pinnacle of automotive excellence. When Jack Steele, Hollywood's greatest action hero, demands the ultimate driving experience, why settle for less?".
  
  
• An anonymous authority: "9 out of 10 dentists prefer this brand".
  
  
• A climate scientist's book: "I don't believe any of those climate doomsayers. Climate change isn't real. I have a book at home by a climate scientist that lays it all out".
  
  

 

[Jacob]

....y.

Unlike Jacob I have no problem with capitalism,

Oh yes you have - many problems, now coalesced into one big one; "climate change".

but the goal of reducing carbon consumption could be met far more simply - eg: tax fuel carbon fuels directly rather than via complex trading and allowance schemes.

Taxation yes and should have been started many years ago

 

[Jacob]

OK

An argument from authority, also known as an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone uses a person's authority to support their argument instead of the person's reasoning. Here are some examples of arguments from authority:

• A mentor's opinion: "My mentor, who holds a PhD in philosophy, said philosophy is the most challenging academic discipline. That's why I decided to study art history".
• 
  
• A nutritionist's book: "I read a book by a nutritionist who says all carbs are bad. That's why I avoid them completely".
  
  
• 
  
• A lawyer's opinion: "My friend's a lawyer, and she also said that fair-use law is a sham".
  
  
• 
  
• A famous actor's endorsement: "The PrestigeX4000, the pinnacle of automotive excellence. When Jack Steele, Hollywood's greatest action hero, demands the ultimate driving experience, why settle for less?".
  
  
• 
  
• An anonymous authority: "9 out of 10 dentists prefer this brand".
  
  
• 
  
• A climate scientist's book: "I don't believe any of those climate doomsayers. Climate change isn't real. I have a book at home by a climate scientist that lays it all out".
  

Yes. But the fallacy of the climate change sceptics and deniers is to be selective; to doubt all "authority" and simply to choose what to believe.

 

[whereistheceilidh]

Cast iron? Best use a methane/oxygen mix. Oohhh…

Well, I was actually referring to their consumption rate. Cattle today have been selectively bred to eat a lot, grow quickly and maintain a high soft tissue mass relative to their wildtype counterparts, and they inhabit an environment where food is not limiting, and thus their metabolism optimises for rapid, rather than complete, digestion. All animals do this. Whether it makes a difference to methane production I don't know, but my point was just that farming cattle is not some 'natural' thing that must be preserved exactly as it is today. Unless we accept that all man's activities are 'natural', then farming definitely isn't, and as for today's farming being the optimum, the Copernican principle states that it's safest to assume we are at some random point in a timeline - not at the end.

But back to your question, for which I had to resort to wikipedia. It varies a lot by region (as I'm sure all you cattle farmers know far better than I) but in general, I think we can say that ancestral cattle (aurochs) ate grass plus whatever higher-calorie plants were available. They do not seem to have generally existed in large herds, which suggests that their diet could be expected to be more diverse than today's cattle, since mass grazing reduces the browsable plant diversity. And of course they ate no processed food or manmade supplements. But mostly they ate grass.

No - Aurochs did not just eat grass.....they & the more 'primitve' native breeds such as Highland cattle prefer to browse, eating coarse annuals, like cowparsley and other tall herbs, and love lower leaves of trees. Grass is very much a second option. Modern cattle also prfer a wider diet if offered it. The coarser diets produce less methane........

 

[Chris152]

As I said before, if you make a statement about a subject you have studied and have a qualification in and state how you came to that conclusion, because x=(blah/blah) times 4 etc.
That's an argument and you may convince someone.

If you just say your piece and say I know, I have qualification take my word for it.

That is an argument from authority.
Can you not see that.-

All experts don't tell the truth, so they must explain fully to be legitimate.

The root of the problem is that most of us, the great unwashed, can't understand the explanations. So we'd be wise not to just accept one expert's opinion/ argument when it doesn't fit with the majority; when there's a clear consensus among experts (authorities), it's pretty dumb of us to go looking for the exception, especially as we're not going to understand that, either. So we go with the overwhelming consensus, and not the few outliers.
We clearly saw that with covid, as ignorant nutters went looking for reasons to not do as 'the science' was telling us.
One of the biggest problems in our culture is that so many don't realise the extent of their own ignorance.

 

[artie]

The root of the problem is that most of us, the great unwashed, can't understand the explanations. So we'd be wise not to just accept one expert's opinion/ argument when it doesn't fit with the majority; when there's a clear consensus among experts (authorities),

Yes, but you also have to watch out for the old "nine out of ten cats prefer" from ten carefully selected cats.

it's pretty dumb of us to go looking for the exception, especially as we're not going to understand that, either. So we go with the overwhelming consensus, and not the few outliers.

Sorry but I cannot agree. The crowd is almost always going in the wrong direction.

We clearly saw that with covid, as ignorant nutters went looking for reasons to not do as 'the science' was telling us.
One of the biggest problems in our culture is that so many don't realise the extent of their own ignorance.

I know you see those who don't agree with you as ignorant nutters, and since you brought up the covus debacle.

It's been reported recently that 11 European countries have banned certain covid vaccines and Astra Zenica has admitted in court that their vaccine can cause clots.

So maybe some of those ignorant nutters had a point.

 

[Jacob]

.......

I know you see those who don't agree with you as ignorant nutters, and since you brought up the covus debacle.

It's been reported recently that 11 European countries have banned certain covid vaccines

Check the facts
https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...d-19-vaccines-for-young-people-idUSL1N2RE22K/

and Astra Zenica has admitted in court that their vaccine can cause clots.

Check the facts https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68977026

So maybe some of those ignorant nutters had a point.

Not if you just select negative gloom mongering from Telegraph, Daily Mail and the other usual sources popular with the nutters. Bad news seems to sell papers.

 

[DrPhill]

Sorry but I cannot agree. The crowd is almost always going in the wrong direction

Are you saying that a scientific consensus is usually wrong?

 

[Chris152]

Are you saying that a scientific consensus is usually wrong?

Seems so. And apparently the scientific community is to be compared to cats in a cat food ad. Funny world.

 

[artie]

Are you saying that a scientific consensus is usually wrong?

Is the scientific community the majority of people.

I really expected better from you.

 

[artie]

Seems so. And apparently the scientific community is to be compared to cats in a cat food ad. Funny world.

Really.

Is that the most intelligent or pertinent comment you can make?