“Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities — the political, the religious, the educational authorities — who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing — forming in our minds — their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness. (A) chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself.”
Argumentum ad verecundiam is only a logical fallacy when one gives an opinion on a subject outside their field of expertise
When one gives it within their field it is perfectly legitimate. But if you think all appeals to authority are bad it would mean
the opinions of experts and non experts alike would carry the same weight as each other. However that is false for someone
who is knowledgeable in a discipline obviously knows more about it than someone who is not at all knowledgeable in it now
Well you have your standards, I have mine. Experts and non experts do carry the same weight if that’s all we’re going by. But - if the expert is more knowledgeable in a discipline, that can be understood very easily. Do you just go to a doctor because they’re an expert, even though they might say something you think is insane? No of course not. But “experts” … “authorities” all subjective valuations of general human consensus. Sometimes it works out ok, sometimes it doesn’t.
Yes, these are good questions. Essentially its by asking questions, or getting communication on their thoughts on the matter at hand. This is the brief way to describe a vague situation as this. Do you have a more specific hypothetical?
So the opinion of someone who has studied a discipline to the highest level and who has devoted all
of their life to it is no more valid than that of someone who knows absolutely nothing about it at all
Reason is my authority. As I already stated - giving the power to someone to hold sway over reason or understanding can be very dangerous. A so called expert, or authority, may be hard to identify. Expert is an adjective to throw around easily. Now if someone who has studied something all their life and gives me an answer as to how to run my life, of course I will be skeptical. What if its how they want to run my life, and not how I want to run my life. So hopefully that clears it up.
“So the opinion of someone who has studied a discipline to the highest level and who has devoted all
of their life to it is no more valid than that of someone who knows absolutely nothing about it at all”
Are the two opinions equally valid or not? Is the expert’s opinion more valid?
PS You can run your live any way that you want. You can choose to ignore advice. That’s not the issue.
Perhaps I did answer his question, I don’t know. But I didn’t answer his question directly because I did not understand his question directly - what is validity? What standard of validity are we referring to? I usually refer to something is logically valid, when I speak of validity myself. So if the instance in so much as we are referring to the appeal to authority in that they are right because they are experts, this is what I am referring to in “appeal to authority”.
Now - sure it is reasonable to go talk to someone with a physics degree from Harvard about the second law of thermodynamics, as opposed to say a 5 year old boy. But that really doesn’t mean the Harvard grad would be right - and the 5 year old boy would be wrong.
These sorts language, meaning and definition issues have become the dominant feature of your discussions - here and in your other threads.
I think that communication is virtually impossible at this point.
What does it mean in a practical sense? What would you get from each conversation?
Both the physicist and the boy are stating their knowledge of thermodynamics. If the boy`s knowledge is correct, then how did he get it without going to school and with limited personal experiences?
I never said anything about giving power to anyone to hold sway over reason. And academic experts are not at all hard to identify since their qualifications
and experience should be a matter of record. Nor did I say anything about someone telling you how to run your life. I was merely implying that the opinion
of someone who knows what they are talking about is more valid than that of someone who does not know what they are talking about which it actually is
Wouldn’t that depend on the individuals themselves and the circumstances?
For the most, wouldn’t you think that that would be a necessity unless you’re asking for a police state or something to that effect.
The way I look at it, the more we try to control people, (aside from rational laws of course) these people lose their power of autonomy.
The general population IS you, me, him, her…
On the other side of that coin, come to think of it, many in the general population do not take the time to think PERIOD! For example, there are cell phone laws in relation to driving but the general population really very often do not think reasonably or rationally about these laws and the logical reasons for them. These people simply go ahead and do what they WANT to do – texting while driving, talking on the phone while driving, without any forethought or consideration of consequences.
I don’t necessarily think that what they need is more control - self-control yes but what they DO need amounts to much more of a bearing of the consequences of their actions.
Towards the thread though, yes, obviously there are times when we do need to question authority but not just for the sake of questioning authority but at those times when authority DOES appear to be overstepping its boundaries by infringing on the “real” human rights of people. But that’s never a clear, black and white issue. But it does need to be addressed.
=D> I commend you for your effort of going against the grain of ‘how knowledge is supposed to be acquired as well as leaving the door ajar on who’s authority it is based’ in your hypothetical. <— Even if that wasn’t your aim, it was big of you to trudge uphill none-the-less. Thanks WW! You made my day!
It’s 50%/50% either way, right or wrong. Say the 5 year old is psychic where as the physicist has only a house of cards built in mid-air (theories). That’s what could actually be the case based off WW’s hypothetical.
I tend to be a risk taker so I would go with the kid, even though it “seems” unbelievable that he could (let alone would) have the true, correct answer. Both the kid and the physicist would have to be tested via the appropriate line of questioning which does not exist in science today. Science is waiting for philosophy to expand it’s horizons.
Wrapping one’s logical head around such a foreign possibility shuts down rationality I fear. Does not compute Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!
If philosophy refuses (kicking and screaming all the way) to acknowledge the possibilities, how is science ever going to progress?
