First, Einstein is AN EXPERT on astrophysics and physics. Thank you for your weak definition of appeal to authority but I know what it means. I was alluding to the fact of how you were just saying a fallacy when there was NO fallacy committed FOR Einstein is an expert in those areas. I'm not just saying that because 'he's all that' he's a renowned physists. For ad verecundiam to be true
A. the authority is NOT AN EXPERT IN SAID FIELD (oh wait Einstein is)
B. the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious (Einstein wasn't those at the time)
C. the authority in question is anonymous (Nope doesn't fit Einstein)
I did not commit Ad verecundiam. Nice try.
As far as superiority over earlier man goes, while I cannot speak for everyone, my colleagues in the medical education field and I (students and professors) are aware that earlier man was not some sort of stupid beast and that our technology is indeed one we obtained by standing on the shoulders of giants. If there is an argument of superiority, it is that we are now in a time and place where the scientific method is fully in use and respected. Carl Sagan made the point early on in his Cosmos series that man knew a fairly accurate measure of the Earths size long, long ago in the third century BC, thanks solely to observations of obelisk shadows and clever use of math; Greeks had known the Earth was round in the 4th century BC - the point being that man has always had cleverness and inventiveness.
What we celebrate is that we have made massive strides in shorter and shorter amounts of time, socially and scientifically, to the point where not only would we not be murdering Hypatia as part of a blood-lust fueled mob as a less savoury moment of history had; we would be browsing her works in the comfort of our home.
Did you seriously just compare a sense of loss over the death of Hypatia at the hands of a christian mob to approving of Hitler?
Seriously I'm not quite getting you here. you're aware that hypatia was a pagan philosopher, and a woman at that, right? and that she was brutally murdered in the name of christianity, right? and that unlike Hitler she- oh, forget it. I have no idea how "hey, it's ok for a woman and/or a non-christian to speak up and they shouldn't be punished for that" equates to "goooo Hitler!" in your mind.
And an appeal to authority fallacy means this: when you basically say "well this person said this, and obviously they are smart, so they must be right".
First many Christian/Jews were killed by pagans as well think about all the works we could have read by them. Wait I don't want to forget the pagan versus pagan violence think of that.
The crocks of your agrument is that we have no need for religion. Science can explain it all and will explain it all. Hence if those dumb (my added emphasis) Christian didn't go killing Hypatia I could be reading her works right now (that's also banking on that her works would survive considering we're missing a fair amount of Shakespears writing which was ONLY 400ish years ago compared to when she lived in 300-400 ad. I guess you like those odds of her work surviving so BLASTS THOSE MOONCALF CHRISTIANS!)
My rebuttal: "Well Bravo! I'm glad you're preoccupied with man and that man is the sole solver of the problems of the universe. Making man the measurement of all things hence putting him in the center of everything. Just means that man can only obtain the knowledge that he himself can discover with no standards outside of himself. "
For essentially you have placed man as the authority with your statement here: "If there is an argument of superiority, it is that we are now in a time and place where the scientific method is fully in use and respected"
There are certain places where the scientific method is not applicable. Since its based on observation(On side note observation use the 5 senses and measuring instruments can be faulty.) and the results of the experiment. This is both a strength and a weakness: Strength because it means that no faulty human ideas can interfere with the cold hard facts. Weakness: virtually impossible to design an experiment that accounts for all possible variables, and the resulting conclusions holds for everyone, everywhere, at any time. If we look at mass conservation and the classical theories of motions it seemed like that those experiments were correct BUT then we found out that they were correct FOR ONLY situations involving velocities way less than that of light. This is why you can only disprove scientific theories as stated with the classical theories of motions all the experiments seemed to be correct yet something else was interferring with the experiment. Please refer to Karl Popper, who wrote some excellent materials pertaining to all this back in the 50s (no surprise here I'm sure we lost some of his materials but at a much lower rate than Shakespeare).
Finally not everything can be subjected to the scientific method. An example is geometry (aka Mathematical Theory), much of science relies on cogitation (or in other words being able to think things through ones own brain) which is a foundation of science and not observation in order to prove something. If you think about it basing geometrical law on measurement or observation is NO GOOD!
I have not even started on morals. The scientific method can not really work well with morals. My point was and is that once you place man in the middle of everything who dictates what is acceptable and what is unacceptable: Eventually leading to the question of who is to judge that Stalin's/Hitler's/Caesar's values are inferior to those of a saint?
I can say that Hitler (you failed to mention Stalin and Caesar) that all the things that they did were acceptable and appropriate along with the killing of Hypatia who to say that I'm wrong now, for with your very own statement we can celebrate all the strides.....yes all the strides with all those people who were elminated and since the scientific theory can't prove or disprove that these actions that were taken are acceptable or unacceptable.
Here's my rebuttal (not to the above statement but putting man in the center):
"Well Bravo! I'm glad you're preoccupied with man and that man is the sole solver of the problems of the universe. Making man the measurement of all things hence putting him in the center of everything. Just means that man can only obtain the knowledge that he himself can discover with no standards outside of himself.
This is one steep slope. Which lead us up or down depending on your perspective to the point where moral values are either just an expression of personal taste or the by product of conditioning or evolution. They're just some "custom, fashion, or feeling". Which will eventually lead to the factor of which values are right and which values are wrong.
Eventually leading to the question of who is to judge that Stalin's/Hitler's/Caesaer's values are inferior to those of a saint?"
Cutting out G-D isn't always conveniant.