Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 5:33 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Appeal to authority
#11
RE: Appeal to authority
(February 13, 2019 at 12:32 pm)LastPoet Wrote: "According to einstein the closer to the speed of light an object is the slower time will pass for it, to an outside observer" -> not a fallacy.

"Eistein believed in god, therefore god exists" -> appeal to authority.

Correct.

We can verify the first claim and have. Not a fallacy.

We can't on the second, therefore a fallacy.
Reply
#12
RE: Appeal to authority
I am an authority on ABBA... That is all that needs to be said.
Reply
#13
RE: Appeal to authority
(February 13, 2019 at 6:03 pm)Dr H Wrote:
(February 13, 2019 at 7:40 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: "Biblical scholars say..."

And 4 out of 5 dentists agree.

More doctors smoke Marlboros! So do more cancerous cowboys.
Reply
#14
RE: Appeal to authority
(February 13, 2019 at 9:05 am)Belaqua Wrote:
(February 13, 2019 at 8:30 am)Brian37 Wrote: The ancient Egyptians, Romans and Greeks also had religious leaders, and again, appeal to their authority would also be a fallacy.

But when it comes to facts like evolution and big bang, appealing to the long term observations that confirm those facts, that is not a fallacy.

If trusting in authority is sometimes OK and sometimes not, then trusting in authority is not a logical fallacy.

It may well be a mistake to trust certain people, but it's not a fallacy.

Strictly speaking, the statement "Einstein said it therefore it's true" is a logical fallacy. The statement "Einstein said it therefore I have confidence in it" is not. As I said before, the practical problem comes when we decide whose statements we have confidence in. "Donald Trump said it therefore I have confidence in it" is not a logical fallacy, but it is a mistake.

More appropriately, we have to be sure that those who we think are authorities are, in fact,  authorities in the subject at hand. At the very least, that means they have access to the information on which they are claimed to be authorities and there is a way they can verify the information. We also have to make sure their authority is relevant to the statements made.

So, for example, if Einstein claimed to be an authority on ancient Egyptian history, we would reasonably doubt that claim unless he could present some evidence of his knowledge of such. In contrast, it is well-known that he was an authority for physics. But we also know that authority expires. So Einstein, even in physics, would not be an authority in any discoveries made since his death.

On the other side, we can reasonably ask whether *anyone* can be an authority in theology. Yes, it is quite possible to be an authority in what people in the past have thought about theology, But does anyone have testable access to any deity to justify their claims to knowledge? And, even if they did, how could anyone else verify such? So, it is reasonable to deny any appeals to authority about the nature of God simply because anyone claiming authority is clearly lying.

So, one of the questions to be asked about any 'authority' is whether it is even *possible* to be an authority in the subject they claim.

Next, it is reasonable to ask whether there is more than one opinion among authorities in a subject or whether there is consensus among those who have studied a subject. So, it is reasonable to accept the consensus among research biologists that evolution is true but still not accept the opinions of a biologist that says all species change is due to genetic drift. The former position is non-controversial among those who have studied the area, while the latter is, at least, a matter of discussion.
Reply
#15
RE: Appeal to authority
(February 13, 2019 at 8:08 pm)polymath257 Wrote: More appropriately, we have to be sure that those who we think are authorities are, in fact,  authorities in the subject at hand. At the very least, that means they have access to the information on which they are claimed to be authorities and there is a way they can verify the information. We also have to make sure their authority is relevant to the statements made.

So, for example, if Einstein claimed to be an authority on ancient Egyptian history, we would reasonably doubt that claim unless he could present some evidence of his knowledge of such. In contrast, it is well-known that he was an authority for physics. But we also know that authority expires. So Einstein, even in physics, would not be an authority in any discoveries made since his death.

Yes, all agreed. 

I just wanted to make the point that a statement like "X said Y, therefore Y is true" is a logical fallacy, even if X is a real authority and Y really is true. Yet we all have to put confidence in authority sometimes. 

Quote:On the other side, we can reasonably ask whether *anyone* can be an authority in theology. Yes, it is quite possible to be an authority in what people in the past have thought about theology, 

Right. An authority on theology, I guess, would be someone who is trustworthy when she describes the arguments made by theologians. Just as an authority on any branch of philosophy will be someone trustworthy in his discussion of what philosophers have said. Such people are useful as guides when we're looking into the field. We often see straw-man versions of theological arguments by people who aren't authorities, or experts, and if we're serious it's important to know the real claims involved.

Quote:But does anyone have testable access to any deity to justify their claims to knowledge? And, even if they did, how could anyone else verify such? So, it is reasonable to deny any appeals to authority about the nature of God simply because anyone claiming authority is clearly lying.

Here you're setting an axiom, which is a philosophical or metaphysical claim. You are taking as given the idea that knowledge is only gained by testable and -- I assume -- empirical input. And that to be reliable it must be verifiable -- again, I assume by empirical testing. 

You are aware, I'm sure, that the axiom you've given -- that all reliable knowledge must be obtained through empirical verifiable methods -- is not something that can be confirmed by empirical and verifiable methods. So it's a claim that needs to be argued in a philosophical way. 

Experts or authorities on theology or philosophy can be very helpful in analyzing the axiom you use here. Metaphysics in general is -- by definition -- not something that physics can test. Hence the name "metaphysics." Yet we all have positions on metaphysical ideas. E.g., your position that science is the best source of knowledge. 

Good authorities on theology, metaphysics, or other branches of philosophy make careful arguments concerning issues which can't be tested in the way you want knowledge to be tested. There are claims about theology and metaphysics which are foolish, and claims which are very hard to disprove. The authorities, as in any field, help us to understand these. 

Sometimes people begin with the same axiom as you and then just assume that anything a metaphysician argues must be stupid. This has led to some very bad philosophizing from non-authorities in the field. If they begin with the assumption that all theology is stupid, they assume they can knock it down easily. But its isn't always this easy.
Reply
#16
RE: Appeal to authority
(February 14, 2019 at 12:50 am)Belaqua Wrote: Experts or authorities on theology or philosophy can be very helpful in analyzing the axiom you use here. Metaphysics in general is -- by definition -- not something that physics can test. Hence the name "metaphysics." Yet we all have positions on metaphysical ideas. E.g., your position that science is the best source of knowledge.

I'm not sure why you had to insert theology in there. Experts on theology can be helpful in this case, sure, but not because they are experts on theology ...

A theologian tends to also be a philosopher, and it is their training in philosophy that would be useful to help answer epistemological questions such as whether or not science is the best source of knowledge. Not their training in theology. Just because someone believes in God and has a comprehensive knowledge of past and present discussions on God doesn't mean they therefore have the required expertise from being a theologian to help answer metaphysical questions.
Reply
#17
RE: Appeal to authority
If I make an appeal to authority, it's usually the work and proven facts that authority has discovered that I'm making the appeal to.

Because this person is an authority in a certain field and has spent decades studying a certain area of science, I will appeal to the work they have done and perhaps appeal to their opinions in this area if that opinion is backed by their own findings.
Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result
Reply
#18
RE: Appeal to authority
(February 14, 2019 at 3:56 am)Grandizer Wrote: I'm not sure why you had to insert theology in there. Experts on theology can be helpful in this case, sure, but not because they are experts on theology ...

A theologian tends to also be a philosopher, and it is their training in philosophy that would be useful to help answer epistemological questions such as whether or not science is the best source of knowledge. Not their training in theology. 

Well, I guess I put it in there because polymath257 brought up theology.

As you say, theologians tend also to be philosophers. I would think that a well-trained one would know something about the relation of scientific knowledge to the world-as-it-is and how that would differ from metaphysical and theological questions. 

Is that separate from their training in theology? The theology I've read has a lot to say about what the world really is and how we know it. But if you want to draw a distinction between, say, Aquinas' philosophy of knowledge and his theology, maybe that's possible. 

Quote:Just because someone believes in God and has a comprehensive knowledge of past and present discussions on God doesn't mean they therefore have the required expertise from being a theologian to help answer metaphysical questions.

Certainly believing doesn't make them qualified, that's true. Nor does it make them disqualified. But anyone who had a comprehensive knowledge of theology would have a pretty solid acquaintance with most metaphysical questions, wouldn't he? What metaphysical question is not addressed by theologians? Or, again, do we have to separate (for example) Bishop Berkeley's writing about ontology and consciousness from his theology? Wouldn't we be splitting pages in half with a razor?
Reply
#19
RE: Appeal to authority
(February 14, 2019 at 5:02 am)Belaqua Wrote:
(February 14, 2019 at 3:56 am)Grandizer Wrote: I'm not sure why you had to insert theology in there. Experts on theology can be helpful in this case, sure, but not because they are experts on theology ...

A theologian tends to also be a philosopher, and it is their training in philosophy that would be useful to help answer epistemological questions such as whether or not science is the best source of knowledge. Not their training in theology. 

Well, I guess I put it in there because polymath257 brought up theology.

As you say, theologians tend also to be philosophers. I would think that a well-trained one would know something about the relation of scientific knowledge to the world-as-it-is and how that would differ from metaphysical and theological questions. 

Is that separate from their training in theology? The theology I've read has a lot to say about what the world really is and how we know it. But if you want to draw a distinction between, say, Aquinas' philosophy of knowledge and his theology, maybe that's possible. 

Quote:Just because someone believes in God and has a comprehensive knowledge of past and present discussions on God doesn't mean they therefore have the required expertise from being a theologian to help answer metaphysical questions.

Certainly believing doesn't make them qualified, that's true. Nor does it make them disqualified. But anyone who had a comprehensive knowledge of theology would have a pretty solid acquaintance with most metaphysical questions, wouldn't he? What metaphysical question is not addressed by theologians? Or, again, do we have to separate (for example) Bishop Berkeley's writing about ontology and consciousness from his theology? Wouldn't we be splitting pages in half with a razor?

My point is that theology is reliance on reasoning (which is what philosophy involves anyway) plus a reliance on faith where reasoning itself isn't sufficient to lead to some "truth". Faith itself is useless to answer the question of what X is or how we know Y is Z because it's pretty much a blind and irrational leap. Philosophy (in the proper sense) is what theologians do when they do reasoning instead to get to a conclusion, so philosophy is what is useful in this case (not theology). Theology (of any kind) is of not much epistemological use to those who don't presuppose the doctrines that are presupposed via faith in the specific theology.
Reply
#20
RE: Appeal to authority
(February 14, 2019 at 7:34 am)Grandizer Wrote: My point is that theology is reliance on reasoning (which is what philosophy involves anyway) plus a reliance on faith where reasoning itself isn't sufficient to lead to some "truth". Faith itself is useless to answer the question of what X is or how we know Y is Z because it's pretty much a blind and irrational leap. Philosophy (in the proper sense) is what theologians do when they do reasoning instead to get to a conclusion, so philosophy is what is useful in this case (not theology). Theology (of any kind) is of not much epistemological use to those who don't presuppose the doctrines that are presupposed via faith in the specific theology.

Yes, I see what you mean. That makes sense. 

Certainly theology that begins with revealed truths, accepting them because they are revealed, is not going to be helpful for people who don't start from those premises. Aquinas, for example, is very careful to differentiate between things revealed and things provable. 

I guess I didn't think about that before because, for the most part, I find the natural theology more interesting, and have focussed on that more myself. But that led me to over-simplify. 

I guess then that there are different ways theologians can be of use to those who don't believe a priori. First, the natural theology that starts with observable phenomena and has a chain of reason that ends in God can be challenging and very hard to refute. It also clarifies, for me anyway, what the metaphysical problems are and why it is that science can't address them. 

Then I guess there are sort of secondary theological arguments, based on prior chains of reasoning which aren't necessarily popular but also aren't revealed in the religious sense. For example, the idea that there is a Form of the Good and that things in this world point to it, has a long chain of reasoning behind it and a long history of persuading people. A lot of theology takes this as a given, assuming that you've done all the Platonic stuff as a prerequisite, and works from there. Simone Weil, for example, wrote theology of this type. 

Finally there are the arguments that are theological because they call on God as an integral part of a chain of reasoning that, even if you don't believe in God in any Christian sense, is helpful for thinking about things. Aquinas' aesthetics, for example, is this way. It falls apart without the notions of beauty deriving from a Form of the Good and of Final Cause as meaningful for explaining things. Yet using those ideas only as markers or tools, the aesthetic system provides a splendid structure for us to think about art and beauty. 

I guess I only disagree with you insofar as you say theological thinking isn't helpful unless you have faith in the revealed parts. I have found it very useful. I guess we have to accept the (perhaps unfortunate) fact that a great deal of the world's best thinking has been done in theological contexts, just due to accidents of history. So if we want to avail ourselves of that great thinking, we need to drink in the theology with it.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Significant Find by the Israel Antiquities Authority Minimalist 34 6805 April 14, 2014 at 3:25 am
Last Post: Confused Ape



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)