Leave It To The Professionals

Whether in philosophy or comedy, never rely on mere amateurs. I'm claiming Fair Use for all clips for the purpose of non-profit commentary.

The "professional philosopher" is William Lane Craig. The other fellow is Steve Martin.

Steve Martin used to occasionally refer to himself as a "professional comedian" and his material as "professional comedy jokes." The hilarious implication of this absurd appeal to professional authority was that anything he said, therefore, just HAD to be funny, even if it was bumbling idiocy.

Now, Steve Martin's appeal to professional authority was meant to be laughed at. Obviously jokes are either funny or they are not. "Well that was a stupid joke ... oh wait, it was told by a PROFESSIONAL comedian? Well, then it must have been hilarious."

But I don't think William Lane Craig was going for a laugh when he referred to himself as a "professional philosopher." Arguments are either valid or not. Methinks you KNOW you're peddling some worthless junk when you have to try and shore it up by telling your audience that, after all, you're a PROFESSIONAL philosopher. Hey, the argument might seem ridiculous, but the guy saying it is a professional, so it's got to be valid, right?

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Steve
• Martin

[Skoenner]

"Hi ppl, I'm not only smart, I'm a profesional smarty, so everthing I say must be smartysmart."

He's just setting up an argument from authority and presents himself as said authority. gotta be pretty full of yourself to do that AS YOUR FUCKING OPENING!!!!

.

[ozmoroid]

@Skoenner I noticed that Christopher Hitchens never opened up a debate with "As a professional author I ...." The man didn't need to create a phony sense of competence; he *demonstrated* his competence through his arguments.

[tandooriconnection]

@ozmoroid I'm surprised this video hasn't been DMCAed by the usual suspect yet (yep, singlular suspect). Did I just jinx you?

[types10000]

@ArticX

" just did a Google scholar search on him and he has many peer review articles"

- i am sure he does, however the fact he does have publications does not give any credence to his unevidenced supernatural fantasies.

Here's an example of what i mean:

i sir Isaac Newton am a professional scientist, and i believe in alchemy blabla.

[types10000]

@ArticX

" him being a professional or not is not the subject of the debate"

a). i never said it was.

b). it does not change the fact his statement is a logical fallacy (he is appealing to his own authority)

[ArticX]

@types10000 just did a Google scholar search on him and he has many peer review articles...so no not just books...insulting others without any basis got old in middle school...the logical fallacy is defending a guy i don't care for to someone that is less intelligent

[ArticX]

@types10000 him being a professional or not is not the subject of the debate(at least i don't think he ever debated this) but a bank account statement would have won him that debate nonetheless

[ArticX]

@types10000 Kripke semantics is the basis for his argument 1000s of citations and sources exist for this in philosophical peer review...and accepted in philosophy

[ArticX]

@types10000 there are reasons certain claims are ignored

[ArticX]

@types10000 calling someone a lier, thief,cheat without proof in a book and you will be subjected to legal prosecution...if aliens existed then they could/would be able to take you to court for defamation...you can say santa was responsible for 9/11 but santa is not real so you would be safe...common sense