After the fight, I compiled the various scorecards from boxing experts around the country. They read as follows:
- Steve Springer: 115-113 De La Hoya
- Tim Kawakami: 115-113 De La Hoya
- Associated Press: 115-113 De La Hoya
- Las Vegas Review: 116-112 De La Hoya
- SI: 115-113 De La Hoya
- ESPN: 115-113 De La Hoya
- Harold Lederman: 114-114 Draw
- Jerry Roth: 115-113 Trinidad
- Bob Logist: 115-114 Trinidad
- Glen Hamada: 114-114 Draw
I know this is not a perfect analogy of the Gary Habermas argument that MrFreeThinker has been using, but I feel that this illustrates the example of using an argument from authority to prove a point. For some reason, people try to point to the consensus of the boxing experts to prove that De La Hoya-Trinidad was fixed by Don King, however there is no evidence at all that the judges were not fair in their decision.
I demand a rematch!
ReplyDeleteI didn't only use the consensus of experts. I used arguments and historical criteria
ReplyDeleteMFT,
ReplyDeleteI picture you as a full sized man with a head the size of a golf ball.
Not to be mean or nuthin...just sayin.......
MFT,
ReplyDeleteYes, but part of the minimal facts argument is an argument from authority. I also provided the motive behind fixing the De La Hoya/Trinidad fight. One of the big problems I have with Habermas' argument from minimal facts is that he makes an exception for the empty tomb. For example, all facts except the empty tomb have an acceptance of 90-95%. However, the empty tomb only has an acceptance of 70% (source/plug: Gary Habermas on The Infidel Guy Show). Why was this exception made? What happens to the overall argument if this exception is not made?
I know the figure ,i've read a lot of Habermas' work. And it doesn't only rely on appeal to authority. habermas does present some strong arguments for the tomb too.
ReplyDelete