Not true if the objective thing is not obvious. If someone links to a study then there are the possibilities of criticizing the methodology, complaining that they can't reproduce the results and/or pointing out that the person citing the study is drawing the wrong conclusion from the results.
See, you're not even thinking this all the way through. Whatever the study says, its recorded data are "objective truths." The conclusions to be drawn from that study may be subject to rhetoric because those conclusions are NOT objective truths. This is objective truth. "Anthropocentric global warming" is not. "What should we do about global warming" is entirely the province of rhetoric, and logos rhetoric will only get you as far as "the graph indicates temperatures are going up."
Sometimes. In other cases the conclusion can be entirely objective (i.e. from the presence of light one can infer the existence of at least one light source). Those are the cases I was talking about. I note that you have only replied to 1 of my 3 points.those conclusions are NOT objective truths.
And your reply is "sometimes" without even acknowledging that your counterargument to me is my argument to you which leads me to conclude that this has long since stopped being a fruitful discussion. I don't even know what points you're talking about. But that's okay. Hie thee back to 8chan.
I don't see how. You said that conclusions from objective facts are not objective. I pointed out an example of an objective conclusion from an objective fact, thus refuting your point. They are in the 2nd paragraph of Can we change to a polite, calm discussion rather one filled with belligerence please (I'll stop if you stop)? Look, in almost all cases the reason I have discussions is not to 'win' and convince the other of my viewpoint or belief for the sake of it or to make him look silly but rather to help the search for truth if the matter is objective or just to express my point of view if not.your counterargument to me is my argument to you
I don't even know what points you're talking about.
Hie thee back to 8chan. (KB)
I note that you have only replied to 1 of my 3 points. (me)
See, you're not even thinking this all the way through. (KB)
Statistical inferences are an appeal to logos by Aristotle's definition, because math is always an appeal to reason and anyway probability is a logic. Citing scientific work is ethos, though, because it's asking you to trust the intellectual virtues of the scientists who did the work.
I'd say a graph is the same kind of thing as a diagram in geometry, an aid to understanding but not an argument in itself. I don't know where Aristotle would classify just pointing at a diagram though. Not logos, geometers in his day knew a diagram wasn't a proof already.