Argument Mechanics - The Realm of Reason Part VI (Appeal to Authority)

-->

Authority

A society requires authority to perpetuate the language, lore and institutions which form the social fabric.

- authority here in the sense of not only the people or publications ordinarily considered authorities, it covers anyone or anything whose word is taken.

The sensible approach to authority (instead of blanket distrust), is to nurture skills for distinguishing reliable authority from poor authority.

When a person is cited as an authority it is wise to have developed the habit of asking questions such as, “is it a matter for authority?”  “Is the authority expert on exactly this subject?” “Is the authority well recognised?”

On topics on which the experts are in disagreement, appealing to authority is usually insufficient.  In areas of disagreement any attempt of the form “it is so because A says so” can be easily countered with “Well, so what, B says such and such”

In such areas the proper alternative must be the withholding of judgment or a more direct form of argument.

It is amazing how frequently someone eminent in one area gets cited in order to glamorize a conclusion in another area.  This deception has been called the fallacy of “borrowed” authority.

The deceptiveness of borrowed authority probably derives partly from our over-simplifying the concept of intelligence.  We think that with brilliance goes good judgment, that with cleverness goes wisdom.

Citing an authority’s recognition backs authority by appealing to authority.  As long as the recognisers remain independent of the authority, no question is begged.

Recognition can be seen in posts held, academic training and degrees, licenses, awards and grants, publications, invitations, citations, and deferrals, to professional references.  Possessing any combination of these means little, one must press further.

Posts held - are they desirable posts? how are they filled? are they filled by the choice of one superior? a committee? popular elections? political influence?

Academic training and degrees - what schools? are the degrees earned or honorary? are these schools strong in the relevant matter? how is a “good” school being judged?

Awards and grants - to offset the awe which some prizes (Pulitzer and Nobel) produce, one must remember that the prizes reward not expertise but work done, which may be in an incredibly narrow specialty.  Remember also that prize committees have their own pressures, sometimes rewarding a science, race, politics or nationality which of the time seemed deserving.

Winning grants tells in someone’s favour if the decisions on the grants were made by experts in the field, on the basis of competence, and if the grants were competitive.

Publications - in themselves books mean nothing unless favourably reviewed.

Articles - articles in several different journals would be preferable to articles in only one, to avoid charges of cronyism.  Articles in publications other than professional journals indicate expertise only in proportion to the expertise of their editors and consultants.

Renown often gets mistaken for expertise.  There are those with more reputation than substance.

It is a useful sign of expertise when one expert defers to or cites an opinion of another.

Other sources of authority - print (some people seem to feel that printer’s ink is the embalming fluid of truth); experience (there exists quite a link between quality and experience, between reliability and time; the need to debunk the appeal to tradition argument (eg. “brewed since 1382” doesn’t necessarily make it inherently better); tests and seals (ie. research houses - some are in a better position to evaluate some factors than to evaluate others); traditions and privilege (ie.  “its always done that way” reply “does that mean it can’t be done better?”); objections to the “privileged access”argument - (1) although those in power may have access to information denied the rest of us, the public may be able to make a better assessment since they are not constrained by a homogeneous group of yes-men, self-servers or flatterers surrounding the decision maker in question (2) if those in power have the “complete picture” then lets hear it, the burden of reasonable explanation of policies lies with the authors and enforcers - this derives from the principle that arguments should be open; backhanded authority argument (argues a position not because of who advocates it but because of who advocates its opposite).

Arguing ad hominem is not to argue immediately for a definite proposition.

Ad hominem attempts to undercut someone else’s claim.  It attempts to do so because of who made the claim.  Since it aims at truth, an argument demands to be addressed.  Thus, whoever advocates not listening to someone’s argument solely on the grounds of who they are or what they might be (eg. a liar)  has not addressed the argument and reasoned falsely.

Argument asks to be accepted on its merits, and should not stand or fall on those merits.  Testimony, on the other hand, asks to be accepted at least partly on the authority of its giver.  With testimony the giver is very much a part of the issue.

Therefore a person’s studity, unreliability or lack of expertise does tell against their testimony, though not against their arguments.

Personal abuse which creeps into debate over issues can generally be taken as intended to weaken the opponents position and so deserves classification as fallacious.

Abusive ad hominem - instead of addressing the issue, abuse the opponent.

Abuse ad hominem - either agree with me, or suffer abuse.

pooh-poohing - offers a temptingly easy way to dismiss the other side’s argument while supplying no reasons yourself [“merely”and “only” are ways of doing this]

circumstantial ad hominem - using people’s special circumstances to tell against their positions.

In invective, abuse and circumstance often fuse together.

- another form of rebuttal attempts to turn advice against its givers by stating that the givers do not practice what they preach.  This has been called tu quoque - “and you, too”; this reply misses the point.

It is wrong to believe that a person must be morally pure in order to make moral judgements.

Wavering in the past, back and forth, does in general weaken testimony, however it does not necessarily apply to argument since reasons and premises can and do change.

In answering an argument, however, neither past changes nor past wavering really matters.  Ther argument itself demands attention, not its circumstances or its author.