But none of the following
arguments are authority arguments.
If we evaluate an argument by looking
closely at the source of a
statement, it's an authority argument. If the best way to evaluate a
particular argument does not include looking at
the characteristics of a person or group, then it’s is not an authority
argument.
Exercises. Examine these arguments and
identify all the authority arguments. For each
authority argument, write out why it is an
authority argument. For each non-authority argument, write out how that
argument is supposed to work
How Authority Arguments Work.
We use authority arguments because there are circumstances where it is
safe to assume that someone else has already done all the critical
thinking necessary to determine the right answer. When we accept an
authority argument, we are assuming two things. First, we are assuming
that the person cited as an "authority" is in fact capable of doing all
of the research and critical thinking necessary to determine the right
answer to this particular question. Second, we are assuming that the
only considerations that influenced this "authority" were the totality
of the available evidence, and honest, conscientious reasoning from
that evidence. Authority arguments hold force because there are people
who take the time and effort necessary to deeply understand particular
subjects, and these people are usually willing to share the results of
their efforts with the rest of us. There are many people who make their
livings by providing the best possible information. Besides the fact
that most experts have a strong sense of professional integrity, they
also have a strong interest in being right, because they can lose
income and prestige if they are shown to be wrong.
How Authority Arguments Go Wrong.
If we don't have a strong reason to think that the "authority" has
based his statement purely on his own competent and thorough research
and critical thinking, then we should not take his word for anything.
It might happen that the "authority" simply does not have the right
expertise for this issue. Or it might happen that we have reason to
think that the "authority" is consciously or unconsciously motivated by
something other than a sense of professional responsibility in this
particular issue.
How To Think About Authority Arguments
An argument from authority can only have persuasive force when
something being said by that particular person or institution gives us
good reason to think that there is another argument - maybe a difficult
or complicated one - but definitely a logically compelling argument,
for that same thing. Thus "Fred says that..." or "The Fred Institute
says... " can only be taken as an argument if it is taken to mean "Fred
(or The Fred Institute) is known to do unbiased, competent research
using good logic and methodology, and has researched this topic
thoroughly, carefully and competently, and has critically analyzed and
evaluated all relevant arguments, and based on this research and
reasoning, and has honestly, and without conscious or unconscious bias
concluded that... "
Critiquing authority arguments can get pretty complicated, so I’m going
to start off by identifying three kinds of specific reasons we might
have to think that some authority has not properly used her expertise,
as well as another kind of reason that might lead us to think that we
cannot rely on experts at all in some particular
case.
1. If the authority in question has a demonstrably bad track record for
this kind of claim, that kills the authority argument. If his track
record is bad, he's no authority.
2. Professional qualifications or training can give someone authority
if her track record is unknown. But if she has the wrong kind of
expertise for this question, then she's no authority,
because wrong
expertise is as bad as no expertise. So if the authority in question
demonstrably lacks the right qualifications, and has no proven good
track record, then the argument is no good.
3. If the authority has the right expertise and/or a good track record,
he might still be unconsciously (or consciously) influenced by some
material interest.
If we don't know of any material interest in the
case, we should assume there is none, but if we do know that the
authority has some definite, proven, material interest in people
believing his conclusion, the argument is no good. He might honestly
believe in his statements, but he might also be influenced by that
known material interest, so he cannot be treated as an authority in
this case.
The above considerations can undermine an authority even if she is the only
person currently put forth as an expert in this particular field. In
contrast, the following consideration basically knocks the whole idea
of using authority out of the window.
If a purported expert has a history of being off the mark, if she has
the wrong expertise, or if she has a material interest in this
particular question, we should have serious doubt that she’s
appropriately using the right expertise for this question. But
opposition by another properly qualified authority does not give us any
specific reason to think that the first expert might not be properly
using the right expertise. After all, it could be that the opposing
expert is the one screwing up. However, one of
these experts must be wrong, and it could
be the first one, so we still can’t take her word for it.
Track Record
The best way to prove that a person or institution has expertise is by
citing a long-term track record of accurate pronouncements. If a person
has turned out to be right over and over again, then that person is an
expert, period. If a person has an excellent track record on a
particular
kind of issue, and we don't have any particular reason to doubt her
word on this particular issue, then her word is
definitely good, whether or not she has any formal training. (There are
situations in which we would doubt the word of someone with a good
track record, but we will discuss those
later.) Remember, authority
arguments are based on the assumption that the "authority" is using
some effective method of figuring out answers to this kind of question.
The only way to really figure out whether or not a method really works
is to try it a lot and see what happens, so a good track record is the
best proof possible that the authority is using a method that works.
Conversely, a bad track record is all the proof anyone needs that
someone is using a bad method. A person can be festooned with degrees,
certificates and awards, but if he has a poor track record for
accuracy, he has no authority whatsoever.
As long as we don't have any special reason to question Louis Ville's
judgment in this particular instance, the following is a very good
authority argument.
Louis
Ville says that Ding Bat's batting average in 1908 was 0.397215. Louis
has been telling me stuff like this about baseball for thirty years,
and he's always turned out to be exactly right.
But the following is a bad argument.
Well,
it's true I've been wrong every time so far, but I've studied this
subject more deeply than anyone else in history, and I hold several
advanced degrees in the subject, so you can be sure I'm right this time.
Now, which of the following is the best critique of
this bad argument?
1. The speaker can't be relied upon because he's not a proper expert.
His qualifications don't count because they don't matter here.
2. The speaker should not be trusted because he has a history of being
wrong. Even if he is as qualified as he claims, we should still
discount the claims of someone who has a bad track record, and this
speaker definitely has a bad track record.
Notice that critique two mentioned the crucial fact
that the arguer has a bad track record, and gave the logical
rule that says what we should do with "authorities" that
have bad track records. Good critiques tend to include mention of
crucial facts and logical rules.
One word of warning. A history of agreeing with your personal views
does not count as a good track record.
Consider Connie. Connie reads and listens to Flush Limburger, Dill
O'Slimy and Schmuck Dimwitty. None of these guys knows his posterior
from a hole in the ground, but Connie believes every word they say
because they make Connie feel that she's smarter and better informed
than other people. Connie particularly likes it when her favorite
authors disparage people she disagrees with. Logic and evidence are
actively avoided because, quite frankly, the slightest attention to
logic and evidence will reveal Connie and her favorite authors as
morons. Now, even though everyone here has a track record that is
pathetic to say the least, Connie firmly believes that each of these
authors has an outstanding track record because every time each one of
them has said anything, Connie has agreed vehemently.
Similarly, a history of disagreeing with you doesn't
make for a bad track record. Imagine that back in the Reagan
Presidency, when Saddam Hussein was at his most murderous, the
following conversation had taken place.
Laurel: West Asia
Eyeball just issued a devastating report on President Reagan's friend
Saddam Hussein. They say that Hussein has committed numerous human
rights abuses including summary detention, torture, assassination and
use of nerve gas agains civilians.
Camren: Yes, well,
what would you expect from an organization like WAE?
Laurel: What is do
you mean? WAE is the most respected eyeballing group in West asia!.
Camren: Oh please!
Just look at their record and you'll see that they don't deserve all
that respect at all.
Laurel: What's wrong
with their record? When have they ever been wrong?
Camren: You're so
naive! Don't you know that WAE has a long history of criticizing
President Hussein?
Laurel: So what?.
Camren: And they've
never printed anything nice about him.
Laurel: Again, so
what?
Camren: So they're
obviously biased! Why else would they print such horrible things about
Saddam?
Laurel: Um, because
he does horrible things to people?
Camren: Now you're
showing your bias against Saddam. And WAE's bias
means that we can ignore them too.
Now, which of the following is the best critique of
Camren's argument?
1. Camren doesn’t manage to come up with a single instance of WAE being
wrong about Hussein. Since he would presumably refute any WAE report he
can prove to be false, we can assume he hasn't found any he can refute,
which strongly suggests that there aren't any to find. This implies
that WAE has a good track record. The fact that they've produced an
unbroken series of bad reports on Saddam Hussein doesn't show any bias
on their part. It simply could be the case that Saddam is a total
scumbag.
2. We can ignore Camren because he's wrong about WAE, and because
Saddam Hussein is a scumbag. WAE has produced a lot of reports showing
that he's a scumbag, and because he is a scumbag, we know that WAE
isn't biased.
Notice that number 1 gives crucial facts and logical rules, while
number 2 does not mention either one of these things. Even worse,
number 2 claims that WAE is accurate because Saddam Hussein really is a
scumbag. This is very bad, because the scumbagginess of Saddam Hussein
is precisely what Laurel is trying to prove. Since this is the point at
issue, it is only an opinion, not a fact, and so no one can use it as
evidence for some other claim.
As I write this, in April of 2015, a book called "Clinton Cash," by Peter Schweizer is due to hit the shelves on May 5. The book purports to provide strong evidence that Bill and Hillary Clinton directly and indirectly received millions of dollars as a result of payments made by people who profited from decisions made by one or other of the Clintons during their respective times in office. As critical thinkers, the first question we should ask about this book is "how credible is this author." Given that lots of prople say lots of false things in books, and that makers of serious accusations need to be held to a very high standard, the author's credibility is of paramount importance here. As it turns out, Media Matters (which has a pretty decent track record) has documented author Peter Schweizer's long history of making false claims against mostly liberal public figures, and of making other false factual claims in his books. (MM) Given this author's history, it would be false authority to make a claim with "Peter Schweizer says this" as its sole supporting fact. Clinton Cash may or may not include some true claims about the Clintons, but those claims will have to be independently supported before we can think we have any reason to think they're true, because the fact that Peter Schweizer makes these claims gives us absolutely no reason to believe them.
Consider this dialog::
Primus: Did you hear
that the Glymptons made a deal with
Electric Zombies from Mars that allowed them to come and eat the brains
out of all of our domestic appliances, and that after that, those
same Electric Zombies made a substantial donation to the
Glympton Foundation for blow-drying the hair of adorable puppies.
Secundus: Wow, that strongly suggests the Glymptons made that deal with
the Electric Zombies because
they paid them a lot of money. How do you know this?
Primus: It's all in Rock Scheißer's book Glympton Greenbacks.
Secundus: How does Scheißer back up this claim?
Primus: Well, he says he has witnesses and documents that all say it's
true.
Secundus: Has anyone run down these sources to see if they check out?
Primus: No, we don't have to, because Scheißer has checked them all
out, and he says they're on the level.
Secundus: Um, isn't Rock Scheißer the fellow who said that President
Bender never met with his Secretary of Cybernetics during the rollout
of the Affordable Cybernetics Act, when in fact Bender had met with
Secretary Gilligan several dozen times during that period? And didn't
Scheißer say that President Bender had "skipped" all his daily
astrological readings, when the fact was only that he uploaded them
through his USB port instead of taking them in through Bluetooth the
way his predecessor did? In fact, doesn't Scheißer have an absolutely
terrible record for accuracy?
Primus: Yes, so?
Secundus: So, we can't rely on this book as our sole support for this
claim about the Electric Zombies from Mars.
Primus: Yes we can. The fact that he's been wrong a lot doesn't mean
he's wrong about this particular thing.
Primus commits false authority by relying on Rock Scheißer as his sole authority for his claim about President Bender. Yes, there's talk of witnessess and documents, but if you look closely you'll see that the only reason we have right now to think that these witnessess and documents exist is that Scheißer says that they do, so Scheißer is Primus' only basis for making this claim about Bender, and, due to his track record, Scheißer is no basis at all. Finally, it'd important to notice, of course, that Primus makes a serious burden of proof error when he says that Scheißer's bad track record "doesn't mean he's wrong about this particular thing." Primus didn't start off by saying "did you hear that it has never been proved false that the Glymptons made a deal with Electric Zombies from Mars." He said "did you hear that the Glymptons made a deal with Electric Zombies from Mars," which imples that, in his opinion, this claim is proven, not just unproved.
Also, Primus is wrong about the "proofiness" of what Secundus is saying. Secundus is not trying to show that Scheißer is wrong. She's trying to show that Primus has failed to prove that Scheißer is right. Thus the bottom line here is that, after all is said and done, it's possible that Scheißer is right, but it's also possible that he's wrong.
Compare to the following dialog:
Tertius: Did you hear that it has never been proved false that the presidential candidate Sean Eliyahu Shrub would detonate nuclear weapons in all major American cities?Would you take Tertius' claim seriously in this dialog? Well, if you wouldn't, you should just as switftly dismiss Primus' claim in the immediately previous dialog, because that claim has no more support than this one. When a claim is only supported by the word of someone who has a history of getting things badly wrong, then it's not supported at all.
Expertise
If you don't have a known track record for a particular person
or
institution, you might be able to infer a track record based on the
type of person or institution involved. There is a strong presumption
that a recognized expert is very likely to be right so, in the absence
of any track record, (or other complication) we are justified in taking
the word of a recognized expert as an authority on his own subject.
Advertising agencies and public relations firms have a horrible track
record, so you should almost never take the unsupported word of an
advertising agency or a public relations firm. The same is true of
politicians. If you don't know a politician's track record for
accuracy, don't take his word for anything. Upon legal advice, I'm not
saying anything about lawyers. No sir, not one darn thing.
Expertise doesn't necessarily mean academic training. The school of
hard knocks can confer valid degrees also. A claim of expertise could
be backed up by university training, work experience, private research,
or some other kind of experience that has led to real knowledge in that
area. The key here is that we can generally assume that this person has
learned from her training and experience, simply because the vast
majority of people exposed to proper training and properly supervised
experience do learn from it. However, mere exposure to
a field doesn't confer expertise by itself. Prejudiced people, for
instance, can and will misinterpret what they see to accommodate their
prejudices. They can do this over and over again, each time becoming
more and more certain that their prejudices are being confirmed by
experience. A lifetime of this will produce a person who thinks he's an
expert, but who actually knows less than nothing about his subject.
This applies to distinguished professors just as well as to anyone
else. The difference is that a professor or similarly educated person
is supposed to have proved his expertise by demonstrating good
reasoning and a good track record in his subject. Therefore, in the
absence of countervailing reasons, we can take the word of an expert,
such as a professor, or someone who has done private research, as a
good reason to believe what he says. But beware, an expert is only an
expert in his own field. Outside of his own field, a professor is just
a layman. Professors of biochemistry are not necessarily authorities on
biology, and vice versa.
As long as we don't have any reason to question their expertise, the
following are all good authority arguments.
Professor
Val Ence, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, says that "Aqua Regia" is
a combination of two different acids.
Ally
Eska, who spent 20 years studying forests in Alaska, says the "peat
moss" found there is neither a peat nor a moss.
Every
established Physicist in the world believes that some version of
Quantum Mechanics will turn out to be correct.
The last argument is particularly strong, because the strongest
possible authority argument is one based on a consensus of known
experts. If, for instance, every biologist known to man believes that a
certain biological theory is correct, and we have no independent reason
to disagree or doubt their words, then that's an overwhelmingly good
reason to believe in that theory, even if everyone else on the planet
vehemently disagrees with it. But only the right
expertise counts. The following are all crappy arguments.
Professor
Val Ence, who is a doctor of chemistry, says that the "peat moss" found
in Alaska is neither a peat nor a moss.
Critique. The conclusion of this argument
concerns something found in Alaska. The right expertise for this kind
of claim would be Alaskan botany or perhaps Alaskan biology. Certainly,
the right kind of expert would be either a naturalist or someone who
studies Alaska, but we have no evidence that Professor Val Ence has
ever studied biology or Alaska. Since he's not the right kind of
expert, we cannot take his word on this issue.
Ally
Eska, who has spent 20 years studying the forests of Alaska, says
Quantum Mechanics will turn out to be correct.
Critique. Ally Eska has not been shown to
be an expert in physics, and only someone with expertise in theoretical
physics will be a reliable source on the issue of quantum mechanics, we
should discount what Ally Eska says about this matter.
Every
established Physicist in the world believes that "Aqua Regia" is a
combination of two different acids.
Critique. Aqua Regia is a matter of
chemistry, not physics. We have no reason to think that any of the
world's established physicists has any training
or track record in chemistry, so we can safely
ignore this consensus.
No matter how much you know about chemistry, knowledge of chemistry
will never qualify you as an expert on Alaska. You can spend a lifetime
studying the forests of Alaska, and none of it will help you understand
quantum mechanics. Even if every established physicist in the world
believe some particular thing, their agreement is meaningless if it is
not a matter of physics.
Sometimes,
determining whether or
not an authority has the right expertise can be kind of tricky. What is
the right expertise to determine whether or not astrology works, or
whether or not all crop circles are made by human pranksters?
Generally, biologists should be taken as authorities on biology,
physicists as authorities on physics, and so on, but astrologers and
cereologists cannot be taken as authorities on the effectiveness of
astrology or the non-human origin of crop circles. The
reason for this difference is simply that, for whatever reason, neither
astrologers nor cereologists do double-blind controlled studies.
Neither do they take any trouble to make sure that their claimed
results are consistent with established scientific results. The use of
double-blind studies, and a concern for consistency with science are
important because they show a strong desire to root out cases where
people have been fooled into believing a certain
event has taken place, especially where such an event is scientifically
implausible. The bottom line here is that the right
expert is often the person who can look into a field from the outside
and tell whether it’s possible that the claimed results are due to
errors or trickery, or the person who can look at a claimed result and
tell whether or not established scientific results give us good reason
to think that it didn’t really happen. For this reason, a stage
magician is the right expert to tell us whether or not a claimed
psychic could be using trickery or an astrologer using cold reading to
fool people, and an astronomer or a physicist is the right expert to
tell us whether or not astrology or psychic powers are physically
possible.
Finally, even the right expertise only counts
when it is used. The following is a very bad
argument.
I'm
sure that the Indian King Ashoka was a Hindu. I mean, I'm only
guessing. I've never looked it up, but you can take my word for it
because I'm an established professor of Indian History.
Critique. This argument is bad because, no
matter how well established the professor is, his expertise only counts
if he uses it, and here he is clearly not using his expertise.
Expertise vs. Track Record
Basically, a known bad track record always
trumps expertise. When we don't have any messy complications, a
recognized expert with a good track record is about the best authority
you can get. However, a recognized expert with a bad track record is
absolutely useless.
We
should trust Conn T. Nental when he says that the Himalayan mountain
range is not getting any taller because, although he's usually been
wrong when he tells us things like this, he does hold a doctorate in
Geology, with an emphasis in Plate Tectonics and mountain formation, so
we can take his word for it.
Critique. Normally, we would think that a
person with these qualifications would be a reliable expert. However,
we happen to know that Conn T. Nental has a very poor
track record, and a poor track record always
means that an authority is no good.
Pseudo Authority
There are also a large number of people out there who was taken as
experts but who have not done the kind of research that would qualify
them as experts. These people are widely read, and widely taken as
authorities, just because because they tell people things they want to
hear. They write about esoteric subjects and so may be taken as an
expert by many people even if he or she has never applied appropriate
reasoning to his or her subject. Even worse, because of the public
popularity of bold and exciting claims about these subjects, people who
do not make such claims will not be popular with
the public. In such subjects, those who make exciting claims can be
presumed to have a strong interest in making those claims, and thus
such an authority should be discounted unless it can be shown that
independent observers have found him or her to have a strong track
record for accuracy.
Interest
A person or institution has an interest when he
has a strong reason to prefer one side of a question to the other.
People can be consciously or unconsciously influenced by their material
needs. So if the expert in question has a personal reason to prefer one
side over the other, then we cannot take his unsupported word on that
issue. On the other hand, everyone has general
interests. Cops make their livings providing people who can be
convicted of crimes, and so every cop has a general
interest in lying about what he saw the suspect do, where he found the
evidence and so on. But we can't say that any particular
cop has a significant reason to lie about any particular suspect just
because cops in general can gain advantages by
lying about suspects. Most people who can gain
advantages by lying still tend strongly towards
telling the truth, so a generalized reason for
lying gives us no reason to think that any particular
person is lying at any particular time. You can only
say that someone has reason for bias in this case when there is some provable
feature of his present situation that would predispose
him to prefer that this specific case came out
one way rather than another.
Here's an example of people losing their claim to authority because they have a financial interest in the issue they are speaking about: Leading Anti-Marijuana Academics Are Paid by Painkiller Drug Companies
I remember back when President Bush was preparing to invade
Iraq I was
very impressed by the fact that the governments of both France and
Russia vgorously opposed the invasion. That is, I was impressed until I
found out that both France and Russia had massive investments in Iraq.
Now, it might have been true that they both
opposed the war because they honestly judged it to be unjustified and
in violation of international law based on their knowledge of the
region and their expertise in international affairs. But, on the other
hand, they might have been just looking to protect their investments,
and it is this latter possibility that means that we cannot take their
unsupported word for the illegitimacy of the Iraq invasion.
Remember it is only actual motives that can undermine an authority. If
someone had made an unsupported claim that France and Russia must
have investements in Iraq, that would not have
been enough to undermine their authority. It is only if it is proved
that they actually do have these investments that
their authority is undermined.
Interest vs. Expertise and Track Record
Interest trumps both track record and expertise. Even a recognized
expert with a good track record cannot be taken as an authority if his
pronouncements also substantially serve his own interests. If we know
that someone has a substantial interest in the position he is
upholding, then we probably shouldn't take his word for it. (The only
exception here might be if the speaker had a good track record that
included a history of making true statements that were against
his own interests. If a qualified speaker has proven that he
would be willing to tell the truth if the truth hurt him, we should
probably be willing to take his word when the truth helps him.
Probably.)
NPR article: 50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat
Snot
Rag tells us that a pocket handkerchief is absolutely essential to
maintaining good respiratory health. Yeah, I know he's recently
purchased shares in a handkerchief factory, but he's got a long history
of making accurate statements about respiratory health issues, so he's
bound to be right this time.
Critique. Because of his track record,
Snot Rag would normally be considered an expert here, but we can’t take
him as one since his financial stake in the handkerchief factory might
have unconsciously influenced him to believe this claim about
respiratory health.
As a
prominent and well-respected physician with ten years of medical
training and twenty years of experience as a medical doctor, I've
always said that vitamin supplements were completely unnecessary for
good health. Until now that is. Yes, I've recently discovered that
vitamin supplements are completely vital to good health! Oh, and by the
way, let me show you my new book on the need for vitamin supplements
and invite you to try my new line of vitamin supplements, "Doctor Pan
der Rer's Vitamin Supplements for Good Health and the Avoidance of
Painful, Lingering Death."
Critique. Pan der Rer has a definite
financial interest in this issue, and widespread acceptance of what he
says about vitamins would lead to him making a lot of money. We don’t
need to believe that he’s deliberately lying, but it’s still reasonably
possible that the possibility of profit has influenced his judgment, so
we can’t take his word on this issue.
Experts are not
oracles. Nothing is
ever true merely because some particular person or institution said it.
What experts have that the rest of us don't is prolonged access to the
best information and arguments available for their fields. They can use
that access to build up a knowledge base that they can share with the
rest of us. But we can only rely on that knowledge base when we are
sure that it exists and that what the expert says is based only on it.
If the "expert" is not an expert in the relevant field, if she is
biased, if her arguments have been discredited, if other experts
dispute her conclusion, or if there is credible contradictory evidence
already in play, then the appeal to her authority is fallacious. This
does not mean that we should ignore her. Given that she has some
expertise, she may be able to offer arguments in support of her claims,
and one or more of those arguments may turn out to be good, even though
her mere word carries no weight.
16. One person has no formal education in the relevant
subject, but has
a long history of successfully answering difficult questions in that
subject. She has no interest in this particular question, and other
experts do not express disagreement with her on this question. Should
we accept her as an authority on this question?
17. Another person has extensive training, and has earned several
advanced degrees in this subject. However, many of her pronouncements
in this subject have turned out to be wrong. Should we accept her as an
authority on this question?
18. A third person has an excellent track record in this subject, but
her track record only concerns questions in which she has no particular
interest. The present question is one in which she does have a
particular interest. In fact, she stands to make a considerable amount
of money if people believe her answer to this question. Should we take
her as an authority on this particular question?
19. A fourth person has several advanced degrees in this subject, and
is widely recognized as an expert in this subject, but he has a
particular interest in this question, and stands to make a considerable
profit if we believe his answer. Should we take him as an authority on
this particular question?
20. A fifth person has advanced degrees in a different
subject. She has no known training or track record in this
subject. Should we take her as an authority on this question?
21. A sixth person has a very good track record in a different
subject. She has no known training or track record in this
subject. Should we take her as an authority on this question?
22. A seventh person is a well-respected authority in this particular
subject. We don't know her track record, but none of her opponents have
come up with any instance where she was clearly wrong before. She has
no particular interest in this subject, and none of the people who
disagree with her have qualifications that are even remotely comparable
to hers. Should we take her as an authority on this question?
23. An eighth person makes his living as an expert in this particular
subject. A lot of people accept him as an authority in this subject,
and take his word for things without checking elsewhere to see if he is
right. We don't know his track record, but he has no particular
interest in this question, and no qualified experts disagree with him.
Should we take him as an authority on this question?
24. A ninth person makes her living pointing out wrongdoing by a
certain group. Whenever she reports negative things about this group,
her income increases. Her answer to the present question constitutes a
negative claim about this particular group. She has no more interest in
this question than she has in any other question about this group, and
all of her previous negative claims about this group have turned out to
be true. Should we take her as an authority on this question?
25. A tenth person makes his living making negative claims about a
certain group. Whenever he reports negative things about this group,
his income increases. His arm to the present question constitutes a
negative claim about this particular group. He has no more interest in
this question than he has in any other question about the group, but at
the present time we do not know his track record on this type of claim,
and neither he nor anyone else can demonstrate that any of his previous
negative claims have turned out to be true. Should we take him to be an
authority on this question?
26. An eleventh person has a very good track record in this
subject. She has no particular interest in this question, but at least
one authority with an equally good track record in this subject is
known to disagree with her on this question. Should we take her as an
authority on this question?
27. A
twelth person has several advanced degrees in the subject, and is
a widely respected authority on the subject, and has no particular
interest in this question. However, at least one comparably qualified
expert on this subject is known to disagree with him on this question.
Should we take the first expert as the deciding authority on this
question?
Fallacies
Sometimes it is easy for a trained person to see that a particular
argument is a load of crap. This is because there are certain bad
arguments that are fairly often erroneously accepted as logically
compelling arguments by untrained and/or dishonest people. These crappy
but common "arguments" are technically called "fallacies." (Some people
use the word "fallacy" to mean some particular belief that they
disagree with. This is misleading, because one's disagreement with
another's belief cannot by itself mean that the other is doing anything
logically wrong by believing the disputed belief.
And merely calling something a fallacy doesn't make it false.) So, a
fallacy is a type of argument that is frequently taken to be a
logically compelling argument, even though it is actually always a bad
argument. There are a large number of fallacies, many of which are so
common, or so interesting that they have special names all of their
own. Here I will talk about all of the fallacies that might possibly be
thought to be associated with authority arguments.
False Authority
Broadly, an argument commits false authority when.
If someone says that some authority supports his conclusion,
but
doesn't tell us who that authority is, his
conclusion isn't really supported..
Scientists have
proved that we only use ten percent of our brains. (What
scientists? When? How did they prove this?)
Someone who isn't qualified in any way cannot be taken as an authority.
Protein
based shampoos have to use vegetable protein to work properly. I'm a
poorly trained retail clerk, so I should know!
Of
course aliens are abducting soap opera stars and replacing them with
robots make of toilet paper rolls glued together with expensive,
french-milled soap. Lux Flakes says so on his immensely popular
website, www.soaprobots.com.
I was
the world’s top actor for fifteen minutes back in the eighties, and you
can take my word for it that Bunkumology is the only true road to
mental and upper-colonic health!
Actually, if something’s only visible advocates
are celebrities, washed-up or otherwise, that’s a good sign that
there’s nothing to it.
And it's worse if that celebrity is being paid to ... um, "endorse” a
product.
You've
got to believe that the "Premauture Poverty Retirement Product" is the
best available retirement plan and won't eat up your savings leaving
you homeless, living under an overpass, freezing cold and so very, very
alone. We've hired some of the worlds best loved character actors to do
our commercials! You trust kindly-looking old character actors, don't
you?
The wrong expertise is just as bad as no expertise at all.
We know
that the Pennsylvania legislature did not blackmail Washington into
spending the winter at Valley Forge because Professor Boon Doggle, a
distinguished professor of Biology says so.
Remember that a bad track record always kills authority stone dead.
The
Freedomland government insists that Draconia possessed weapons of mass
digestion and would have used them if Freedomland hadn't invaded
Draconia. I know that the Freedomland government was completely wrong
when it previously said that the Spammish government sunk the FLS
Potato with a giant potato-masher grenade, and they were wrong when
they said that the nation of North Tofu was completely unprovoked when
it invaded South Tofu, and they were lying through their teeth when
they said that the North Vermichellians fired underwater sausages at a
Freedomland Dessertship. In fact, the Freedomland government has never
been accurate in claims of this kind. But, they have always had exactly
the right kind of expertise to verify these kinds of claim, so we can
absolutely trust them this time.
Pronouncements by persons or institutions of a type that that's never
been reliable cannot be relied upon.
Shill
and Knownothing, the public relations firm, has announced that the
Rummybuddies, (who recently invaded Quseven) are committing atrocities
against the Qusevenis. It's true that public relations firms have a bad
track record in general, but Shill and Knownothing is a brand new
company, with new people, and therefore no track record, so you can
trust them.
And, of course, a particular material interest ruins even the best
authority in that particular question
Skiffer
Skillets are the best! You can trust them because super-sou-chef
Emerlililililifobobobobob-bo-bop said they're absolutely the best
skillets in the world, just after he inherited the company that makes
Skiffer Skillets.
Finally, an expert who fails to actually use his expertise is just as
bad as someone who isn't an expert at all. Sometimes an expert claims
that, although there is no formal scientific research or other
independent evidence backing up his claim, we should accept it as
authoritative because it is based on his "trained intuition." The idea
here is that experts get so that they have a "feel" for their fields,
so that their guesses and gut feelings have the same force as those
pronouncements that are backed up by actual research. Unfortunately,
real research has shown that experts' "trained intuition" is no more
accurate than a lay person's "guess." In fact, trained intuition
actually lowers the performance of experts because they sometimes
choose to ignore their training in favor of a gut feeling. Despite what
we see in the movies, the gut never performs as well as training.
The basic idea behind the false authority fallacy is that an arguer is
offering someone as an authority when we have clear reason not to take
that person as an authority. This is either because the person offered
hasn't been proved to be a qualified expert, or it is because we have
some particular reason to discount his opinion in this case.
Red Herring
The red herring fallacy occurs when someone tries to distract us with
something that isn’t really relevant to the issue at hand. I wouldn’t
even mention red herring in this chapter, except that there's an
interesting form of red herring associated with authority arguments. I
say "associated" because it actually has nothing to do with authority,
even though it tries very hard to pretend that it does. This is the use
of phrases like "but who are you to say" as attempts at refuting
arguers who have not given authority arguments.
Lee: We should
believe that badger bowling is morallly wrong because a lot of badgers
get bruised, and a lot of badger bowlers get bitten by badgers.
Alvin: But who are
you to say what's morally wrong? Who gave you the authority to condemn
badger bowling?
Notice that, even though Alvin is acting like Lee
gave an argument based on her own authority, Lee actually gave an
argument based on certain facts about badger
bowling. Alvin's cry of "but who are you to say" completely misses the
point of Lee's argument. (That’s what makes it a red herring.) The fact
that Lee isn't established as an authority isn’t relevant
to the issue of whether or not injuries to badgers and badger-bowlers
justify banning badger bowling. Thus Alvin commits a huge, and rather
whiney, red herring.
Circular Argument
An argument is circular when questioning its dubious premise sooner or
later leads right back to the unsupported restatement of the
conclusion. (This can happen when someone attempts to save a
question-begging argument by coming up another question begging
argument for that question-begging premise. Keep doing that over and
over, and you'll eventually start to repeat yourself.) An argument can
only work if its premises are supported by existing, well-established
knowledge, or by premises that themselves are supported by existing,
well-established knowledge. An argument that attempts to support itself
in mid air will always fall.
I know
Jeff is honest because Marie insists that he is. And we can trust Marie
because Rudy swears that Marie is absolutely honest. As for Rudy, well,
Jeff insists that Rudy is absolutely reliable! (So the
claim that Jeff is honest ultimately rests on... the claim that Jeff is
honest!)
We know
that astrology works because it has been validated by our best
psychics. How do we know that validation by these psychics can be
trusted? Simply because each of them has an astrological chart that
indicates absolutely stunning psychic ability. (So
astrology tells us that astrology is reliable.)
Benjamin. You should
believe Rush Limbaugh is a political expert because Ben Stein says he
is.
Shaylee. But is Ben
Stein a good judge of political expertise?
Benjamin. Of course
he's a good judge of political expertise! Rush Limbaugh says he's a
genius!
Circular arguments demonstrate the need for fact mining. Look for an
independently supported claim to authority in the above arguments. You
won't find one. Not of these people are shown to be authorities by
anything outside their circles, so none of their claims can be taken as
exidence for anyone's expertise.
Ad Populum
The fallacy of ad populum consists of thinking that something is true
merely because a lot of people think that it is true. This counts as an
authority argument because it relies on the credibility of a group of
people who just happen to believe something. But such arguments are
absolutely always bogus. The fact is that things that "everybody knows"
very often turn out to
be totally false, so popularity can never make a
belief true.
Jaren. Don't even
try asking old MacLir to contribute to your charity. He's Scottish, and
everyone knows that Scotsman are tight with money.
Perry. Hoots mon,
dinna fash y'self o'er yon haverin'!
Jaren. Come again?
Perry. Sorry. I
meant to say you're committing an ad populum.
Jaren. I'm coming a
what?
Everybody
knows that chiropractic works!
Everybody
knows that we only use ten percent of our brains.
Everybody
says that whatever Fred says is true.
Because the general public has an absolutely terrible track
record for accuracy, the united opinion of a million uninformed people
are no better than
the opinion of a single uninformed person. When the only
support a
claim has is the fact that "everybody knows" it's true, then it's not
supported at all.
Here’s how to tell when a bad argument isn’t committing
some particular fallacy.
False
Authority
If the argument does not cite someone as an authority, the fallacy
cannot be false authority.
If there is no bad track record, lack of qualification, or specific
interest, the fallacy is not false authority.
Red
Herring
If there is no documentable fact cited, the fallacy is not red herring.
If the fact given is actually relevant, the fallacy is not red herring.
Circular
Argument
If the doubtful authority is not supported by another doubtful
authority, the fallacy is not circular argument.
Ad
Populum
If any specific authority is mentioned, then the
fallacy is not ad populum.
Name
that fallacy.
Each of the following paragraphs is a description of an argument that
commits some particular fallacy. For each paragraph, name the
particular fallacy committed. If the fallacy committed is false
authority, add one of the modifiers "bad track record," "no relevant
expertise" or "particular interest" to your answer depending on
precisely what is wrong with that particular type of argument.
28. The argument is based on the authority of an expert who
has never
before been wrong about this kind of claim, but this particular case is
different in that, for the first time, it is well-documented that this
particular expert has a private motive for us to believe his statements
that he did not have in any previous case.
29. The argument is based on the authority of a purported expert, but
there is no evidence that this "expert" has relevant training, or a
good track record, or anything else that would qualify him as an expert
in this case.
30. The argument is based on the authority of someone who is only an
expert in some completely different and unrelated field from the one
that we are expected to take him as an expert in.
31. The argument is based only upon the fact that its conclusion is
widely believed by members of the general public.
32. The argument is based on the authority of someone who has a long
history of being wrong about this particular subject.
33. The argument is based on the authority of a person whose only claim
to expertise is that he is considered an expert by some other person,
and this other person's only claim to expertise is that he is
considered an expert by the very person whose authority he is supposed
to be certifying.
34. The argument is aimed at refuting another argument by pointing out
that the person giving the argument is not an authority, but that other
argument is not based on any claim to authority for that person.
Exercise 2.6.
Name that fallacy,
round two.
Let us say that Chain Smoker is a high
school dropout who smokes
four packs of cigarettes a day.
Clear Cut insists that Tree
Farm is a leading expert on forest ecology.
Tree Farm says that Chain Saw is a world-recognized authority on forest
ecology. Nobody else considers any of these guys experts on anything,
and none of them has documented training or successful track record on
forest ecology.
Horn Spammity is a well-known
radio show host who is famous for making
numerous definite pronouncements on matters of morality, politics and
culture. Millions of people listen to his radio show and applauded his
comments, but people who take the trouble to check up on what he says
find out that he is almost invariably wrong about matters of morality,
politics and culture.
Toss Pot has a completely
unknown background.
Eye Ball is an expert on eye surgery
with impeccable qualifications and
an impressive track record. Until now, he has not stood to gain or lose
by anything he is said publicly about eye surgery. However, he recently
acquired a considerable number of shares in the company that holds the
patent to the "Jackhammer and Lemon Juice" method of surgical vision
correction.
Each
of the following paragraphs is an argument that commits some
particular fallacy. For each paragraph, name the particular fallacy
committed. If the fallacy committed is false authority, add one of the
modifiers "bad track record," "no relevant expertise" or "particular
interest" to your answer depending on precisely what is wrong with that
argument.
35.
Chain Smoker points out that The New England Journal of Medicine has
published numerous unchallenged studies proving that smoking cigarettes
seriously raises the risk of emphysema, heart disease and cancer. But
can you really take this seriously, given that Chain Smoker smokes four
packs of cigarettes every single day?
36.
Everyone should support the new "Slash and Burn" plan for forest
management. Clear Cut says that this is the only environmentally
sustainable forestry plan, and he should know because Chain Saw says
that Clear Cut is the world's most reliable expert on forest ecology.
And we know that Chain Saw is an expert because Tree Farm says he is
preeminent in the field. And you know that Tree Farm is an expert
because Clear Cut has said many times that Tree Farm is one of the top
men in the field.
37.
Horn Spammity says quite clearly and unequivocally that the banning of
cigar smoking from neonatal intensive care units is morally wrong,
politically reprehensible, and culturally bankrupt because it will
inevitably lead to the complete and utter destruction of Western
civilization, and perhaps the eventual destruction of the planet Earth
itself.
38. Of
course McDonald's food is good for you. Everyone I know believes it's
wonderful!
39.
Toss Pot says that marijuana smoking is absolutely immoral, so we
should redouble our efforts to prevent people from smoking marijuana.
40. You really should consider the Jackhammer and Lemon Juice surgery to correct your vision. Eye Ball is a leading expert on eye surgery, and he says it is an amazing new breakthrough in vision correction surgery.
41Based on my trained intuition, I can confidently assert that this prisoner will not break parole by committing more crimes, and should therefore be released on parole.
With
authority arguments, tactics are simple. If a second argument tries to
undermine the authority used (or supposedly used) in the first
argument, that second argument is a counter
argument. If the second argument does not address the claim to
authority of the source in the first argument, the second argument is not a
counter argument.
The first few exercises below involve an imaginary radio personality, Dr. Laura Schlockslinger, (loosely based on someone else), but they are not based on anything particular that any real person has said. Just pretend that she said the words I put into her mouth here for the purposes of these exercises, and remember that I am no authority on what the real Dr. Laura has or hasn't said. (And I may be prejudiced!) For your information, both the real and the imaginary Dr. Laura holds a doctoral degree in physiology. Neither has any training or experience in philosophy, theology or moral reasoning. Got that? No training in philosophy, theology or moral reasoning! The books and radio shows of both are filled with claims about morality. For purposes of this exercise, I am going to say that our Dr. Laura doesn't like Larry Flynt. (My only evidence for this is just the fact that the real one once tried to organize a boycott of a surf shop that sold a surfing magazine published by Flynt.)
Your mission is to evaluate all of the arguments found in each of the following dialogs. You don't have to commit yourself to saying that one argument is remember that the basic way to evaluate any argument is to figure out what candidate principle is being offered to absolutely perfect and the other is absolutely terrible. You do have to say which side has the stronger argument(s) and which is weaker. It might be helpful toreize, context and/or analyze the argument sets on paper if it helps you. You can even do a full fist of death if that's helpful. But you don't have to do those things if late the available facts to the conclusion, and figuring out if that candidate principle is logically valid. The "right way rule" might also be helpful. You can standardyu can figure out which argument is better and which is worse. Determining who commits a fallacy and who doesn't is also helpful. Exam questions may well ask oyou to identify various fallacies. Oh, and make sure you take the above background information on Dr. Laura Schlockslinger into account as you evaluate the Schlockslinger arguments. (Just in case you forgot, in the example of phony refutation given way up above above it is NELL who commits the fallacy. Vicky commits no fallacy!)
Finally, say whether or not the second argument is a counter argument.
42.
Tyshawn.
I think that sex education is a good idea. It would help kids cope with
their sexual feelings if they knew where they were coming from and what
they could lead to.
Magdalena. You'd think
that wouldn't you. The problem is, Dr. Laura Schlockslinger says that
sex education is immoral and dangerous, so we should ban it from
schools. That proves that sex education is a bad idea.
Tyshawn. Isn't
Schlockslinger a Ph.D. in physiology? What does that have to do with
morality?
Magdalena. Don't change
the subject! She's a doctor, isn't she? That should be enough for you.
43. Sonny.
Although I personally find Larry Flynt to be a disgusting person, I've
got to admire the way he's dealt with being paralyzed. All those new
magazines and other businesses he's started show he hasn't let being in
a wheelchair slow him down.
Mireya. Dr. Laura
Schlockslinger says that Larry Flynt is faking the injuries that put
him in a wheelchair, so he's a fraud!
44. Tatiana.
Dr. Laura Schlockslinger claims that human cloning will cause nothing
but misery for everyone concerned. She says that the clones will grow
up desperately unhappy, their parents will be unhappy, and the
practitioners of cloning will be especially unhappy when they see all
the misery they have caused.
Darrion. But Dr. Laura
has made many pronouncements like that over the years, and almost none
of her dire predictions have come true, so I don't really think that we
can take her word for the future of human cloning.
45. Milton.
Dr. Laura Schlockslinger has collected a wide variety of scientific
papers saying that human cloning involves all sorts of physiological
problems that are not well reported in the media, and that these
problems could have devastating consequences for any human clone, so
she says that uncontrolled human cloning carries horrendous moral risks.
Julien. But that's
false authority because Dr. Laura is always saying that this thing or
that thing carries moral risks! Just turn on her radio show, or open
one of her books! You will find her saying that some thing is morally
wrong. She's always saying that something is morally wrong, and she
never says that anything is morally okay, so if she talks about
something, she's obviously going to say that that thing is morally
wrong. So obviously, we can ignore her claim that human cloning has
moral risks.
46. Kacie.
Dr. Laura Schlockslinger says that people learn quickest when their
work is competently criticized, and that therefore teachers should not
be banned from criticizing students' work.
Rylie. But that just
proves that teachers should be banned from criticizing students' work!
You know how conservative Dr. Laura is, and how little she really knows
about education, so obviously criticism is bad educational practice.
47.. Solomon.
Did you hear that Doctor Beauregard Vineyard has proved that all the
mountains in the world are in fact artificial structures erected in the
distant past by super intelligent cows from other planets?
Deborah. Um, how do
you know he's proved this?
Solomon. Because he
says so in his new book, All of Our Mountains Were Erected by Cows. And
he is the world's leading authority on ancient bovine astronauts. You
know this because he was prominently featured in the world-famous
documentary "What the Moo Do We Know?"
Deborah. But can we
trust a movie?
Solomon. Normally, no.
But we know this movie is accurate because it was lavishly praised on
the website www.astrocowmountainmakers.com.
Deborah. Is this
website on the level?
Solomon. Of course it
is! Dr. Beauregard Vineyard says that this website is the most accurate
and up-to-date source of information on ancient bovine astronauts and
their mountain-making activities in the history of the world.
Deborah. Uh-huh.
48. Alfonso.
You really should take the ancient bovine mountain builders seriously.
Dr. Beauregard Vineyard insists that they existed, and he is in fact
the world's only authority on the subject. In fact, he has done an
enormous amount of research on the subject, and is written nearly 300
books documenting all the evidence on this issue.
Joey. Doesn't he
make his living writing these books? How much money would he make if he
came out and said that these ancient bovine astronauts didn't exist
after all?
Alfonso. Well, if he
didn't say they existed, his books wouldn't sell, he would have to find
another way to make a living.
Joey. Exactly!
49.
Macie.
You like action figures. Why don't you go out and buy a full set of the
"Ancient Bovine Astronauts" figures, now on sale everywhere.
Amari. You think
I
should buy a bunch of figures of cows in space suits with shovels and
dump trucks full of schist?
Macie. Dr.
Beauregard Vineyard says they're the most authentic Ancient Bovine
Astronaut figures there ever could be.
Amari. Doesn't
he
also own the company that makes these action figures?
Macie. Yeah, so?
50.
Kenya.
Dr. Rama Pithicus tells us that modern humans emerged from their
pre-human ancestors in the vicinity of Bakersfield over 2 million years
ago, so Dr. Crow Magnum could not have been using appropriate
archaeological techniques when he decided that modern humans originated
in Melbourne Australia, 2 million years ago.
Malia. But Dr.
Crow
Magnum is every bit as qualified as Dr. Rama Pithicus, so it must be
Pithicus who wasn't using appropriate techniques.
51.
Ramiro.
Professor Her She has been studying chocolate for over 40 years. His
study of chocolate took place at the top chocolate research labortories
and universities in the world, and he has been repeatedly certified as
the expert on the composition and effects of chocolate in the entire
world. So when he says that liberal applications of chocolate on the
scalp can cure baldness, you had better believe him, especially since
he has absolutely no financial interest in this issue.
Angie. Doesn't
Professor Her She have a long history of making outrageous claims about
chocolate, all of which have turned out to be false?
Ramiro. Yes, but
that
doesn't matter, because he is still the world's foremost authority on
chocolate.
52.
Deshawn.
Did you know that the Humanity Research Council has condemned the
showing of nature films in hotel rooms. They say that these films
promote domestic violence by encouraging men to act like male lions and
tigers around the house, stalking their innocent family members before
pouncing upon them and biting them savagely about the neck and
shoulders. We must join the effort to prevent hotels from making nature
films available to their guests.
Aurora. What kind
of
track record does the Humanity Research Council have for its
pronouncements about things that influence people to act like animals?
Deshawn. Well, I
don't
know about their track record, but they are well known, and
well-established advocacy group.
53. Alessandro. I
was just reading a report by some feminist group or other. They took
World Health Organization and United Nations statistics for the amount
of the world's work that is done by women and compared it to the amount
of the world's wealth that is actually controlled by women. It turns
out that two-thirds of the world's work is actually done by women while
only five percent of the world's wealth is controlled by women.
Liliana. That is complete and utter nonsense! Don't
you know that PARADE magazine reported that 86 percent of all the
personal wealth in the United States is owned by women! 86 percent! Now
do you see that those feminists don't know what they're talking about?
54.
Edith.
Did you know that Pickup Styx, the chief Uninvited Napkins cuisine
inspector, still maintains that there were no significant stocks of
waffles of messy dessert items in Pastria at the time of the Cordon
Bleu invasion of that country.
Carina. Are you
nuts? Absolutely everyone
I know says that Pastria had massive stocks of those messy dessert
waffles at the time of the invasion! Everyone in my knitting circle has
a different story of some clever way those Pastry Cooks hid some kind
of waffle, and just about everyone in my book club has got a similar
story. Who does this Pickup Styx think he is, going up against all my
friends and acquaintances
Possible Quiz Questions (By the
time you
finish this chapter, you should easily be able to answer these
questions. If you can't, go back and read the relevant sections again.)
55. Should we trust an authority who has frequently been wrong about
this
kind of issue?
56. Should we trust an authority whose only expertise is in a
completely
unrelated field?
57. Should we trust an authority who stands to make a lot of money if
you
believe him in this particular case?
58. Should we trust an authority who relies on her feelings rather than
her
expertise?
59.Should we believe a claim merely because everyone else, or nearly
everyone else believes it?
60. Should we disregard an authority merely because she has a track
record
of saying nothing but bad things about a particular person?
For the last few
answers, the information that is really necessary
for a critique will be in bold
type.
42. Based on the dialog between Tyshawn
and Magdalena, sex education is a good idea. As Tyshawn says, sex
eduction would help kids cope with their sexual feelings. It is a
well-established fact that becoming properly informed about a type of
situation is usually enormously useful, and being uninformed is usually
extremely dangerous, and can be fatal, depending on the type of
situation. I know of no situations in which people do better when they
know less about what's going on. Because this fact is so well
established, Magdalena, who thinks sex education should
be banned, has to come up with an extremely compelling reason if she is
to prove her point. Magdalena points out that the imaginary authority,
Dr. Laura Schlockslinger, has stated that sex education is immoral and
dangerous. If Dr. Schlockslinger is right, that would give us ample
reason to ban sex education from schools. Unfortunately for Magdalena,
Dr. Laura Schlockslinger is not an expert in either sex education or
morality. She's a physiologist, which gives her no expertise in this
particular area, and thus we can, and should, discount her statements.
Without a qualified authority to back her up, Magdalena's argument
fails.
Tyshawn.
First gives a direct
argument, not based on authority,
Magdalena. Then gives a direct argument,
this time based on authority,
Tyshawn. Gives a counter argument,
against Magdalena's authority
Magdalena. Tries to counter Tyshawn's
counter argument.
43. Based on facts supplied by Sonny and
Mireya, Larry Flynt is admirable. Sonny cites Larry Flynt's
achievements to show that there is something admirable about Flynt, and
it's very reasonable to admire someone who achieves a lot while
wheelchair bound. However, Mireya cites Schlockslinger's
authority as a physiologist to show that Flynt is a fraud. Sonny's
argument depends on Flynt actually being wheelchair-bound. Starting new
magazines and other businesses is not really that admirable if one is
not confined to a wheelchair. Dr. Schlockslinger is a Ph.D. in
physiology, which would qualify to discuss people's injuries and
disabilities, but she has a well know animus against Flynt. That's not
a material interest exactly, but she does have a track record of saying
unfounded bad things about Flynt, so if she said this we'd have to
discount it until we had evidence from an independent physiologist who
could care less about Larry Flynt's life and work.
Sonny. Gives a direct argument, not
based on authority,
Mireya. Gives a direct
argument, based on authority,
44. Based on the above dialog between Tatiana and Darrion, human cloning will not cause widespread misery. If Tatiana thinks that somebody else's actions will cause harm, it's up to Tatiana to come up with the evidence that it will cause harm. If this wasn't the rule, we would have to prove every new thing harmless before we could do it. Tatiana cites Dr. Schlockslinger as an authority for her claim that human cloning will be harmful. But it's hard to see how Schlockslinger could be qualified here and, as Darrion points out, she has a terrible track record, so double nuts to Tatiana. Even if Schlockslinger had substantial expertise in this matter, her unsupported word would not be enough to support this claim because we have evidence that she isn't good at making such predictions. Based on this, clones won't necessarily be miserable.
Tatiana. Gives a direct
argument, based on authority,
Darrion. Gives a counter argument,
against Tatiana's authority
45. The preponderance
of
evidence given here by Milton and Julien supports the idea that human
cloning does indeed carry moral risks. Dr. Laura seems qualified here
because she's collected the relevant scientific papers, which is what
experts are supposed to do. Milton appears to be giving an authority
argument because he cites Schlockslinger, but notice that he actually
refers to a wide variety of scientific papers, all of which
Schlockslinger is competent to analyze because of her doctorate in
physiology. Schlockslinger's Ph.D. at least qualifies her to find and
read scientific papers, and she has no bias here, so we have no reason
to discount her claims in this case. Julien attacks
Milton's argument by accusing Milton of commiting the fallacy of false
authority. He supports this by pointing out that Schlockslinger has a
long track record of making precisely this kind of claim. Julien
accuses Milton of relying on a biased authority, but his evidence for
that bias is merely that Schlessinger predominately comments on things
she thinks are morally wrong. Since the fact that someone makes it her
business to point out bad stuff doesn't by itself mean that she's wrong
about anything, Julien is bringing up a point that has nothing to do
with the issue.
46. Based on Kacie's and Rylie's
arguments, teachers should be allowed to criticize student's work. This
is actually a very well established educational principle, and so we
already have very good reason to believe it. We should only disbelieve
it if someone comes up with an extremely compelling argument against
it. This Rylie totally fails to do. Rylie argues that
teachers should not be allowed to criticize student work because
Schlockslinger says they should, and she's an idiot. But no matter how
stupid Schlockslinger is, her stupidity can't change any facts, so she
can't make something false merely by saying it's true. Schlockslinger
isn't the only person in favor of criticism, so Rylie's got to come up
with something that covers everyone who supports the idea of
criticizing students's work. Unfortunately, his premise only applies to
Schlockslinger! Since the usefulness of criticism is already accepted
by educational professionals, it doesn't really need Dr. Laura's support,
so since Rylie failed to meet his burden of proof, and the most
rational conclusion here is that criticism is good educational
practice.
47. Based on the dialog between Solomon
and Deborah, we should say that proposition that all of our mountains
were erected by cows is absolutely false. Our present
understanding of mountains and cows implies that Dr. Vineyard's thesis
could not possibly be true. If Dr. Vineyard was a competent authority,
this might give us some reason to believe his thesis. However, his
claim to expertise is based on a documentary movie, whose only claim to
authenticity is in turn backed up by a website, that is itself only
certified as an authority by Dr. Vineyard himself. This is a completely
circular argument that provides absolutely no independent support for
Dr. Vineyard's claim to expertise. Thus, Solomon's argument commits the
fallacy of false authority.
48. The dialogue between Alfonso and
Joey does not, by itself, really give us enough information to settle
this issue. Our pre-existing knowledge of plate
tectonics and cow history so strongly contradicts Dr. Vineyard's thesis
that we would need absolutely incontrovertible evidence that it was
true before we would even begin to think about the possibility of even
thinking that it might be true, and in the word of a single expert,
even if impeccably qualified would simply not be enough. Alfonso does
cite the only person who could possibly be an authority on this subject
but, since he does not cite a track record or any other evidence that
Dr. Vineyard has done actual critical thinking about this issue, we
don't really even have the beginnings of an authority argument.
On the other hand, Joey's argument is no good either.
The fact that Dr. Vineyard makes his living by writing about this
theory does not mean that he's not an authority, simply because the
majority of reputable experts make their livings by writing about their
subjects.
49. The dialog between Macie and Amari
suggests that we have no real reason to think that the "Ancient Bovine
Astronauts" figures are the most authentic Ancient Bovine Astronaut
figures there ever could be. Macie relies upon the
authority of Dr. Beauregard Vineyard who, as the world expert on the
Ancient Bovine Astronauts theory would normally be considered the
premier expert on the authenticity of Ancient Bovine Astronaut figures,
but he happens to own the company that makes this particular figures,
and so he has a strong financial interest in this issue. Given this
interest, we cannot take his word on this issue, and Macie commits the
fallacy of false authority by relying on his word.
50. The dialogue between Kenya and Malia
gives us no basis for saying anything about the origin of modern
humans. Both speakers accuse the other of citing an
authority who misuses his expertise, but the only evidence they give is
that the other expert disagrees. Although disagreement between experts
suggests that someone has messed up, the mere
fact of disagreement does not tell us which one of them it was.
However, because equally qualified experts disagree about this issue,
we simply cannot rely on authority to settle the question. Furthermore,
because each speaker wants us to accept his favored authority while at
the same time rejecting another, equally qualified authority, they both
commit the fallacy of special pleading.
51. After considering the dialogue
between Ramiro and Angie, we have no real reason to think that rubbing
chocolate on one's head can cure baldness. It is true that professor
Her She has an enormous amount of expertise and no financial interest
in the matter, but he also has a history of making outrageous
statements that turn out not to be true. That, by itself, is enough to
disqualify him as an authority, and so Ramiro commits the fallacy of
false authority by citing an authority with a bad track record.
52. Based on the information in the
conversation between Deshawn and Aurora, we should not try to make
hotels stop showing nature films to their guests. Everything
should be considered morally okay unless we have a specific reason to
think that it is morally bad, so Deshawn bears the burden of proving
that it is morally wrong for hotels to make nature films available to
their guests. He tries to do this by citing the Humanity Research
Council, a well known advocacy group. However, being a well-known
advocacy group does not establish a good car track record or any other
kind of qualification. Since the Humanity Research Council has no
actual qualifications, it really cannot count as an authority, and
Deshawn commits false authority.
53. Liliana
commits false authority,
since Parade Magazine is not an experty on this subject, or any other.
54. Carina commits ad
Populum.
55.
We should not
trust an authority who has frequently been wrong about that
kind of issue.
56. We should not
trust an authority whose only expertise is in a completely
unrelated field.
57. We should not trust
an authority who stands to make a lot of money if you
believe him in this particular case.
58. We should not
trust an authority who relies on her feelings rather than her
expertise.
59.We should not
believe a claim merely because everyone else, or nearly
everyone else believes it.
60. We should not
disregard an authority merely because she has a track record
of saying nothing but bad things about a particular person.
