quote:Originally posted by PurpleHaze:quote:Originally posted by WEc:quote:Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
Nope. At least not according to the USDA.
ad verecundiam x 1quote:Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
Twice nope'd, WEc!
ad verecundiam x 2
I'm confused, WEc. Are you asserting that the USDA and their Canadian counterpart aren't authorities in the classification of meat?
Sure, the USDA and the Canadian board are authorities in the classification of meat. But it is not clear to me that the term red meat when tossed around in conversation is actually associated to the classification. For all I know, red meat are two english words and hence I could equally appeal to the OED ( here) which clearly states:
red meat, dark-coloured meat, as beef or lamb (as opposed to chicken, veal, etc.)
Beyond this, there are two variations of ad verecundiam fallacies but they take on the same logical forms where subject X is an expert in the field Y.
X is an expert in Y.
X says A.
The difference is whether the statement A, itself, is relevant to the field of Y. Of course, in the absence of this relevance, this fallacy is immediate (i.e., drink Pepsi cause Michael Jackson endorses it) but even in the event that A is relevant to Y, this is still a fallacy (The chief economist at the Bank of ABC said that interest rates will fall and so therefore interest rates will fall!)