Does Winning a Nobel Prize Support An Argument ?

1. 79

   Phil Perezposted 3 years ago

   Does Winning a Nobel Prize Support An Argument ?
   
   If so, why?

   replyreport
2. 95

   M. T. Dremerposted 3 years ago

   I would say that it lends that person, or that specific issue, some credibility. They don't give out those prizes to just anyone. But neither is it infallible. All awards are given out by humans and are subject to the same shortcomings we all have.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Phil Perezposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Even if an argument is not credible, it must have some worth if it is logical, no? An N.P. is just recognized by people. If a more "important argument" makes more sense and is not credited with a N.P. as opposed to one that is, how is that sensible?

      replyreport
   2. 95

      M. T. Dremerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      A Nobel Prize is not a prerequisite for a logical or important argument. It's just one of many ways we assess those arguments.

      replyreport
   3. 79

      Phil Perezposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly! I completely agree!

      replyreport
3. 57

   tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago

   
   
   Of course it does, it supports this argument, that person is a loon because the reputation of the Noble prize has been seriously damaged by Barack Obama, the surprise winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The Committee praised what it called his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy".
   The American president, in power just 9 months, was chosen over the 204 other people on that year's record length shortlist. That farcical decision of the Nobel committee calls into question not only the validity of all previous awards but the motivation behind making selections which now has been proven to be heavily political and insincere.
   
   Had Obama, now known to be a pathological liar responsible for setting world peace back decades, lived up to the committee's expectations doesn't matter because the award is not supposed to be given solely on the basis of the winner's perceived good intentions. If anything Obama has made "extraordinary efforts to destroy international diplomacy". There set with Russia? How many red lines? Our allies don't trust him, his mishandling of Iraq has set the entire Mideast a flame, the whole world hates him more than they hated Bush,just read the polls.
   
   Frankly if anyone in today's world wants to lend credibility to themselves for the sake of an argument I would think the last thing they'd want to assert is that they won a Nobel Prize! Wouldn't you agree?
   
   It lends about as much support to an argument as saying "I was elected the captain of the football team in high school, really it's just a popularity award. Not just Obama, other award winners have demonstrated the same incompetence in their field, it's a joke.
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpheXxu9vM0

   replyreport
4. 81

   adagio4639posted 3 years ago

   That depends on the argument. It it's not about what the guy won the prize for, then it's just an Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundium, literally "argument from that which is improper"): An appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable. This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual’s expertise is within a strict field of knowledge. On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education or economics is fallacious. To cite Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite Rand Paul; an Opthamologist, on the Constitution is fallacious.

   replyreport
5. 78

   GizSleepposted 3 years ago

   That person could undoubtedly use it in an argument but what does it really prove? That their peers saw fit to give them an award? It's like a footballer winning player of the season, yes he can brag about the accolade but it doesn't mean he's technically had the best season, just that his peers have voted for him.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      GizSleepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry I would like to add that the nomination alone might be a better argument to make, because being nominated generally means you've done something well whereas winning can be because of a whole host of political reasons.

      replyreport