Two Conundrums

[LightFang]

1. Appeals to authority.

"Genetic engineering is always morally wrong."
"Why do you believe that?"
"Dr. Smith told me."
"Who is he?"
"He's a professor of mathematics."

Clearly this is an appeal to authority.

"Moral relativism is hokey according to my friend."
"Who is he?"
"He's a philosophy major. He also says that his professors agree with him as well."

Here the line is kind of more blurry. At what point do we accept authority? Authority in a relevant field should be the deciding factor - or is it not? We know authorities are wrong sometimes - does this undermine us appealing to them?

2. Tu quoque and bias.

"It's morally wrong to use animals for food and clothing."
"But you are wearing a leather jacket and eating sausage!"

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false.

However, we also want to point out bias in authorities. Scientists at the Coca Cola Company have determined that Coca Cola is the most healthy soda brand out there on the market. But we wouldn't be inclined to trust that, because they're biased! Or should we trust them anyway? Where do we draw the line?

 

[Bill3000]

An Appeal to Authority represents a special case of appeals. Appeals to Authority may represent relevant sorts of appeals:

“My little nephew Max well, who knows a lot about Star Wars says that that guy’s name is “Chewbacca,”, therefore that guy’s name is probably “Chewbacca.”

They may also represent irrelevent sorts of appeals, such as:

“My little nephew Maxwell, who knows a lot about Star Wars, believes that it is going to rain today, therefore it probably will rain today!”

Of course not all cases are as easily discernable as are the above cases. Such as this:

“Albert Einstein, even after all his research into the nature of the universe, still believed in God. He once wrote, ‘I do not believe that the universe was the result of blind chance.’ If belief in God made sense to Einstein, then it makes sense to me!”

As well, an appeal to Chuck Norris is always acceptable.

What ought to be clear by this point is that that the appeal to authority is a rather common (and often good or relevant) way to support our beliefs. However, a correct or relevant appeal to authority must fulfill the following two conditions:

i. We lack information or experience (or the capability) that is needed to make a reasonable decision, and it is difficult or impossible on the matter in question to obtain it directly for ourselves.
ii. The authority appealed to is entitled to authoritative status on the matter in question.

When we want to assess the adequacy of an argument that in at least one of its premises appeals to authority, we have to test that appeal. We do so with 5 criteria:

1. The authority must be identified.
2. The authority must be recognized by experts in the field.
3. The particular matter in support of which an authority is cited must like within his field of expertise.
4. The field must be one in which there is genuine recognized knowledge.
5. There should be a consensus among experts in the field regarding the particular matter in support of which the authority is cited.

Often, these premises themselves have to be argued for! Any field is contentious – often it has to be argued for these premises for authority, especially number 5.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Here the line is kind of more blurry. At what point do we accept authority?

We can argue when the truly apprioriate time is to accept appeal to authority, but ususally people accept appeal to authority whenever the appeal appears to be strongly credible, convincing, and possibly objective.

2. Tu quoque and bias. The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false.


That is correct. The problem with tu quoque is that the response doesn't address the valdity of the claim presented. Thomas Jefferson could present a 1000 page thesis on how slavery is incongruent with a true democracy, but mentioning that Thomas Jefferson himself owned slaves doesn't challenge the validity of his argument.

I think when we come down to it, we like to resort to mentioning someone's inherit bias because we're not willing to accept them as willing to accept truly objective studies in the interest of study that might not help the company make profits. Call us cynics.

Tu quoque is just bad emotional reasoning (the enemy of logic)

 

[LightFang]

I think when we come down to it, we like to resort to mentioning someone's inherit bias because we're not willing to accept them as willing to accept truly objective studies in the interest of study that might not help the company make profits. Call us cynics.

Tu quoque is just bad emotional reasoning (the enemy of logic)

So essentially the fact that Coca Cola scientists come from Coca Cola is not relevant? What's that fallacy called? I don't think it's a tu quoque.

 

[Narz]

"Moral relativism is hokey according to my friend."
"Who is he?"
"He's a philosophy major. He also says that his professors agree with him as well."

Dude, how dare you question Fifty?

 

[QuoVadisNation]

So essentially the fact that Coca Cola scientists come from Coca Cola is not relevant? What's that fallacy called? I don't think it's a tu quoque.

It could be. It also could be that their study is actually valid and merits looking further into instead of dimissing it out right.

Also, the third paragraph isn't really meant to be a seque into the very last line. I just added it in there afterwards.

 

[LightFang]

As well, an appeal to Chuck Norris is always acceptable.

Funny.

It also could be that their study is actually valid and merits looking further into instead of dimissing it out right.

Right, but how do we tell the difference between what I found out is called appeal to biased authority and a simple tu quoque?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Question authority!! Mostly they or it have been badly, biased or inaccurately represented. Philosphical appeals to authority should never be questioned, just dismisssed out of hand as mostly useless.

 

[warpus]

Here the line is kind of more blurry. At what point do we accept authority? Authority in a relevant field should be the deciding factor - or is it not? We know authorities are wrong sometimes - does this undermine us appealing to them?

Well.. if an expert in a field can back up his position, then it makes more sense to accept his/her opinion and use quotes from that person to back up something you are trying to argue.

Say we're arguing about relativity; it makes sense to bring up arguments from Einstein - as we know that they are backed up by logical deductions, experiments, and a multitude of other experts.

You wouldn't, say, use a quote from a preacher to back up a point you're trying to make in a discussion about relativity - unless that preacher has credentials in the field..

 

[Gogf]

1. Appeals to authority.

"Genetic engineering is always morally wrong."
"Why do you believe that?"
"Dr. Smith told me."
"Who is he?"
"He's a professor of mathematics."

Clearly this is an appeal to authority.

"Moral relativism is hokey according to my friend."
"Who is he?"
"He's a philosophy major. He also says that his professors agree with him as well."

Here the line is kind of more blurry. At what point do we accept authority? Authority in a relevant field should be the deciding factor - or is it not? We know authorities are wrong sometimes - does this undermine us appealing to them?

The way I see it is that saying "such-and-such a relevant figure in the field agrees with me" is a pretty reasonable way to back up your argument, especially in a discussion amongst laypeople. The key, here, though, is that you actually have an argument to back up—if your argument is "Harold Bloom thinks this," well, that's not much of an argument.

However, if you are, as a scholar of a certain field are engaged in a debate with another scholar, then an argument from authority shouldn't carry a whole lot of weight, since you guys ARE the authorities. Sure, you can quote someone, but, in my view, that should be more motivated by the eloquence of their writing than the "see who agrees with me!!!" impulse.

(By the way, when I said "fifty agrees with me" last night, I meant that as a joke. Which brings up another issue: what the heck do you call a true statement that's meant humorously? A true joke? A troke? A jue? )

 

[LightFang]

Question authority!! Mostly they or it have been badly, biased or inaccurately represented. Philosphical appeals to authority should never be questioned, just dismisssed out of hand as mostly useless.

Right, but then what do we do about the consensus? Do we throw that out too? Or should we take it into consideration when much of the authorities agree?

Well.. if an expert in a field can back up his position, then it makes more sense to accept his/her opinion and use quotes from that person to back up something you are trying to argue.

What if the person whom you're discussing things with insists that it's still an appeal to authority? What do you do then? Do you concede that and point out that it still lends your argument credence? Do you stop arguing because it's clear the opponent is a pedantic idiot?

However, if you are, as a scholar of a certain field are engaged in a debate with another scholar, then an argument from authority shouldn't carry a whole lot of weight, since you guys ARE the authorities. Sure, you can quote someone, but, in my view, that should be more motivated by the eloquence of their writing than the "see who agrees with me!!!" impulse.

Oh, I hadn't thought of it like that. What do you do about the consensus though?

(By the way, when I said "fifty agrees with me" last night, I meant that as a joke. Which brings up another issue: what the heck do you call a true statement that's meant humorously? A true joke? A troke? A jue? )

A humorous statement.

 

[Gogf]

Oh, I hadn't thought of it like that. What do you do about the consensus though?

Consensus doesn't make right. At one point the consensus was that the sun orbited the earth. If I'm a leading scholar of something, I'll consider other opinions as ideas that might be correct, but I'm not gonna try to form my opinions based on what's popular.

 

[warpus]

What if the person whom you're discussing things with insists that it's still an appeal to authority? What do you do then? Do you concede that and point out that it still lends your argument credence? Do you stop arguing because it's clear the opponent is a pedantic idiot?

Then you research the arguments of the expert and you present them as arguments to back up your point.