The appeal to authority fallacy is when one attacks the source of the claim i.e. as a matter of syllogistic logic. argumentum ad verecundiam or ipse dixit. As it is obvious you haven’t even a base understanding of philosophy, there is most often the form of a bare assertion fallacy involved. Not withstanding, the assertion was mine, and not Dr. Shermer’s, meaning this could not possibly be the proper form of the fallacy, as I was the source of the claim.

The false appeal to authority is when a source is sited as proof for a claim, and the validity of the claim is questioned by diminishing the asserter and/or the source; i.e. an ad hominem. (This is where you and others are guilty and convicted, because your credentials, unmentioned and unestablished, do not meet the conditions for refutation based upon academic superiority or known expertise.)

Which, in the form of the fallacy, has a rather pertinent exigency: that the authority is claimed to be infallible. Which never occurred.

My statement was just as thus; you aren’t in a provable position to be dismissive of Dr. Shermer. His credentials established, yours … hrmmm, how should I say this: not.

Although, I have to give DA credit for illustrating that proof by tenure is not necessarily a good choice. Well done, and accepted.

Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe not only has a PhD, but serves as professor of biochemistry, so let’s just accept everything he says.

Anyway, it is a reference to the Higgs Boson, (?fundamental binding energy?); look up Fermilab Tevatron accelerator and Cern’s LHC … you’ll get the necessary information.

It will be America FTW on this one; I loves me some American scientists.
(Just for clarity, “FTW” is “for the win” …)

Hitler, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, Nietzsche, Ted Bundy, Caligula, Nimrod … all technically mad.

Also, all technically brilliant.

Let me give you a tour of my world (psychology), where such madness abounds.

Actually, it’s called the “false appeal to authority” fallacy. Which my statement doesn’t qualify for, which is something any skeptic should recognise, and know the definition of before posting.

I’ve yet to meet a single PhD. holder who was less intelligent, or even of equal intelligence to a lay person. If your statement was correct, the likelihood is that the PhD. degree would be ubiquitous, not selective.

In the end, see comment #30.

You’re obviously not a skeptic, are you? Having a PhD absolutely does NOT mean the person knows what he’s talking about, nor that the person is smart. Now saying these things I am not insulting Shermer, but refuting your ridiculous claim that anyone without a PhD should not talk. That’s the appeal to authority, a major logical fallacy, something any skeptic should recognize. The fact is Shermer gave a bad example that frankly had barely anything to do with evolution at all. Also, Shermer is not a scientist, his PhD is not in science, so he is no authority in the first place. I’m sure he knows his stuff, but don’t start trumpeting his PhD as a reason why we can’t criticize. Everyone is up for criticism, that’s part of being a skeptic in the first place. I’m sure he appreciates the criticism.

Another simple demonstration that makes another relevant point (IMHO) is to clean a handfull of 6-23 screws and nuts in an ultrasonic bath. After a period of several minutes of jiggling, examination of the hardware in the bath reveals that a certain fraction of the nuts have screwed themselves onto the screws. Someone skilled in statistical mechanics could, I’m sure, come up with a formula expressing what fraction of the nuts have done this, and the distribution of distances they’ve screwed themselves along the screws. I leave it to others to infer the point I’m making.

There’s nothing more appreciated than a vicious wit … lol. Some get it, some don’t.