![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Argument From Authority
May. 28th, 2010 12:58 amI see this argument used online a lot, so I thought I'd take a few minutes to discuss what it is and what it's not.
There are two different uses of this argument in online debates. The first is the logical fallacy of The Argument From Authority. The second is accusing someone of using the logical fallacy when it was actually an entirely appropriate tactic.
So, first, what is it? The Argument From Authority is a logical fallacy that states that a claim is true BECAUSE someone in particular said so:
The earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible says so.
There is a Santa Claus because my daddy told me so.
You lied because my best friend's sister's boyfriend's cousin said you did.
Extraterrestrial aliens exist because this guy who wrote a book about them says they do.
Humans are actually wired in favor of this argument. As younglings, our parents impart knowledge of the world that is supposed to help us grow up big enough to have younglings of our own. We don't have time to research every claim and learn every trick for ourselves. We just have to believe that fire is hot and that these tracks on the ground belong to a predator and strangers are bad because mommy and daddy said so, until we have time to verify those claims. We may not even ever need to verify them. Children who followed what their parents said to do for survival without testing for themselves have a higher chance of survival than children who really NEED to lean over the edge of the cliff to see if it's a long way down.
But, here's the trick: the claim is not true BECAUSE our parents said so; the claim is true AND it was our parents who said so.
This is where people get tripped up. Evolution is not true because Darwin said so. In fact, he wasn't even the only one to say so at the time. Evolution is true, and Darwin just happened to be the one to get his claim published first (short-version). The claim is still true no matter who says it, and, in fact, many, many people have said it after verifying it for themselves. Plus, Darwin got a lot of things wrong, and we have subsequently learned and incorporated that into the body of knowledge now collectively called "the Theory of Evolution".
The sum of all human knowledge is far greater than any individual could possibly hold. So we have to take a few shortcuts. If a scientist tells me that black holes have the same force of gravity as the star they used to be, then I'm kinda inclined to believe him. Why? Because a scientist told me so. But it doesn't just stop there, like those who use the logical fallacy do. I'm inclined to believe him because I don't have the time, energy, or resources it takes to learn astrophysics to the point where I can personally verify his claim.
But others have.
And others with equal or more experience and knowledge would have tried to disprove his claim. Only after no one has been able to disprove his claim, does the claim trickle down to me, and only then do I accept his claim as probably true. However, should anyone be able to, not only disprove his claim, but come up with an alternative explanation that subsequently fails all attempts at being disproved & whose tests have been independently replicated, I'm willing to revise my own acceptance of that claim.
The difference here is not that I believe the claim because a scientist says so, it's because the claim stands on its own even if someone else makes the claim, and I just happened to have heard it from a scientist. The claim would be equally true if I had heard it from my grandmother, who is not a scientist.
But The Argument From Authority logical fallacy requires a person to believe in the claim because of the vehicle in which the claim was delivered. The nature of a scientific claim is that no one believed or trusted it on its own, others had to test it for themselves first - including the person making the claim! The original proposer of the claim had to try to falsify his claim before making the claim public & subjecting it to peer-review, those peers who would then try to falsify the claim themselves. The nature of non-scientific claims is that someone makes a claim and everyone else has to take it on faith. Not only has no one tested the validity of the claim, but questioning is often seen as a character flaw itself.
This situation is reserved for empirical claims - objective statements made about objective issues. There is a time for which the Argument from Authority is valid, although it may not be called that. When the claim is a subjective claim made about something internal, like a person's feelings, then in the case of a dispute, the person who is feeling the subjective emotion should be seen as the final authority in the dispute. It is entirely appropriate to take a person's word about his feelings over someone else's assertions to the contrary, in the absence of objective, verifiable evidence (like a recording of that person saying the opposite).
Let's take a common online experience to illuminate the difference. Jane says something in an internet forum and Patty says something in response. Jane then gets upset and accuses Patty of "attacking" her in her response.
In this scenario, whether or not Jane FEELS attacked is subjective. If John says that Jane doesn't feel attacked, and Jane says she does, then Jane's word is the definitive answer on the subject, because Jane would know better than John how Jane feels. John should yield the argument to Jane because Jane is the authority on her own feelings, so it is fair to say that the fact that Jane feels attacked is true because Jane said it was.
However, whether Jane actually WAS attacked is an objective claim. If it was a physical attack, the claim could be verified by things like bruises or signs of a scuffle. In words, it's a little more difficult, but Patty's intent and an analysis of the words used and the context in which they were used are the tools we would use to evaluate the claim. The fact that Jane FEELS attacked does not necessarily mean that Patty ACTUALLY attacked Jane.
Paul and Paula are having an argument over whether or not Paula still loves Paul. Paul can point to specific actions on Paula's part that gave him reason to believe she doesn't love him, but in the final analysis, Paula is the only one who can say with any certainty what Paula feels for Paul. It is true that Paul does not feel loved by Paula. But it is not necessarily true that Paula does not love Paul. Paula may, indeed, have done a poor job of showing her love, but if Paula says she loves Paul, and Paul says she doesn't, Paula is the authority on how Paula feels.
Stan believes he is being visited by aliens about once a month, who paralyze him and perform frightening experiments on his body that leave almost no trace, but occasionally he does find unexplained bruises on his body in the morning after these nocturnal visits. That Stan is frightened is a subjective claim and if Stan claims he is frightened, that claim is most likely true. That Stan is visited by anal-probing aliens is an objective claim, and is either true or not true whether Stan makes the claim or not. In a dispute over whether or not he is being visited by aliens, Stan's word is not actually the best piece of evidence because of what we know of the fallibility of human perception. But whether or not Stan feels FRIGHTENED is a question that only Stan can answer & his word is the final answer.
Keith claims that all women view sex as a tool to lure a mate into taking care of them. Sarah stands in front of him and says she is a woman who does not. Keith insists that since all women feel that way, Sarah must also. Sarah insists that she likes sex for sex and can take care of herself just fine, thank you very much. Keith is making a claim about someone else's personal, subjective feelings. The person he is making a claim about rejects the claim. In this case, because the claim is about Sarah's feelings, then "because Sarah said so" is a legitimate reason to believe her claim over Keith's claim.
Peter says that atheists are just mad at god. Adam, who is an atheist, says he is not mad at anyone, except maybe Peter for being an ass. Peter sticks to his claim while Adam patiently explains that one can't be mad at something one doesn't believe even exists, it would be like being mad at Professor Snape, whom he knows is a fictional character. Since the claim is about Adam's personal beliefs, it is reasonable to assume that Adam is correct and Peter is wrong on the basis that Adam is the authority on Adam's own beliefs.
People who are sticklers for things like logical fallacies are often accused of utilizing them when their
opponent is losing an argument, if that opponent doesn't really understand the logical fallacy to begin with. In most things, claiming that X is true because So-And-So said so is a logical fallacy. But when accusing someone else of feeling something they claim they are not feeling, although this is technically a matter of empirical fact also (either he is feeling this or he is not feeling this), believing the truth of the claim made by the person who is feeling the feelings - because he is the authority on the subject and made the claim - is not a logical fallacy in this case.
So, the Argument From Authority as a logical fallacy is when someone claims that something is true, and his evidence for the truth of the statement is that a particular authority figure said so. In the empirical realm, statements of fact are either true or not true, and they are either true or not true no matter who says them. The truth of the matter is not dependent upon who makes the claim.
But when a person makes a claim about his subjective feelings, in a dispute about whether or not he feels those feelings, the evidence for the truth of the statement does, indeed, rest on the person making the statement. Who is making the statement about a given person's feelings is actually an important factor in judging the truth of the statement. One can claim that another is not behaving consistently with his claims of his feelings, but, ultimately, he is the final authority on what his feelings are and that is a legitimate use of calling on an authority as evidence for a claim's validity.
There are two different uses of this argument in online debates. The first is the logical fallacy of The Argument From Authority. The second is accusing someone of using the logical fallacy when it was actually an entirely appropriate tactic.
So, first, what is it? The Argument From Authority is a logical fallacy that states that a claim is true BECAUSE someone in particular said so:
The earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible says so.
There is a Santa Claus because my daddy told me so.
You lied because my best friend's sister's boyfriend's cousin said you did.
Extraterrestrial aliens exist because this guy who wrote a book about them says they do.
Humans are actually wired in favor of this argument. As younglings, our parents impart knowledge of the world that is supposed to help us grow up big enough to have younglings of our own. We don't have time to research every claim and learn every trick for ourselves. We just have to believe that fire is hot and that these tracks on the ground belong to a predator and strangers are bad because mommy and daddy said so, until we have time to verify those claims. We may not even ever need to verify them. Children who followed what their parents said to do for survival without testing for themselves have a higher chance of survival than children who really NEED to lean over the edge of the cliff to see if it's a long way down.
But, here's the trick: the claim is not true BECAUSE our parents said so; the claim is true AND it was our parents who said so.
This is where people get tripped up. Evolution is not true because Darwin said so. In fact, he wasn't even the only one to say so at the time. Evolution is true, and Darwin just happened to be the one to get his claim published first (short-version). The claim is still true no matter who says it, and, in fact, many, many people have said it after verifying it for themselves. Plus, Darwin got a lot of things wrong, and we have subsequently learned and incorporated that into the body of knowledge now collectively called "the Theory of Evolution".
The sum of all human knowledge is far greater than any individual could possibly hold. So we have to take a few shortcuts. If a scientist tells me that black holes have the same force of gravity as the star they used to be, then I'm kinda inclined to believe him. Why? Because a scientist told me so. But it doesn't just stop there, like those who use the logical fallacy do. I'm inclined to believe him because I don't have the time, energy, or resources it takes to learn astrophysics to the point where I can personally verify his claim.
But others have.
And others with equal or more experience and knowledge would have tried to disprove his claim. Only after no one has been able to disprove his claim, does the claim trickle down to me, and only then do I accept his claim as probably true. However, should anyone be able to, not only disprove his claim, but come up with an alternative explanation that subsequently fails all attempts at being disproved & whose tests have been independently replicated, I'm willing to revise my own acceptance of that claim.
The difference here is not that I believe the claim because a scientist says so, it's because the claim stands on its own even if someone else makes the claim, and I just happened to have heard it from a scientist. The claim would be equally true if I had heard it from my grandmother, who is not a scientist.
But The Argument From Authority logical fallacy requires a person to believe in the claim because of the vehicle in which the claim was delivered. The nature of a scientific claim is that no one believed or trusted it on its own, others had to test it for themselves first - including the person making the claim! The original proposer of the claim had to try to falsify his claim before making the claim public & subjecting it to peer-review, those peers who would then try to falsify the claim themselves. The nature of non-scientific claims is that someone makes a claim and everyone else has to take it on faith. Not only has no one tested the validity of the claim, but questioning is often seen as a character flaw itself.
This situation is reserved for empirical claims - objective statements made about objective issues. There is a time for which the Argument from Authority is valid, although it may not be called that. When the claim is a subjective claim made about something internal, like a person's feelings, then in the case of a dispute, the person who is feeling the subjective emotion should be seen as the final authority in the dispute. It is entirely appropriate to take a person's word about his feelings over someone else's assertions to the contrary, in the absence of objective, verifiable evidence (like a recording of that person saying the opposite).
Let's take a common online experience to illuminate the difference. Jane says something in an internet forum and Patty says something in response. Jane then gets upset and accuses Patty of "attacking" her in her response.
In this scenario, whether or not Jane FEELS attacked is subjective. If John says that Jane doesn't feel attacked, and Jane says she does, then Jane's word is the definitive answer on the subject, because Jane would know better than John how Jane feels. John should yield the argument to Jane because Jane is the authority on her own feelings, so it is fair to say that the fact that Jane feels attacked is true because Jane said it was.
However, whether Jane actually WAS attacked is an objective claim. If it was a physical attack, the claim could be verified by things like bruises or signs of a scuffle. In words, it's a little more difficult, but Patty's intent and an analysis of the words used and the context in which they were used are the tools we would use to evaluate the claim. The fact that Jane FEELS attacked does not necessarily mean that Patty ACTUALLY attacked Jane.
Paul and Paula are having an argument over whether or not Paula still loves Paul. Paul can point to specific actions on Paula's part that gave him reason to believe she doesn't love him, but in the final analysis, Paula is the only one who can say with any certainty what Paula feels for Paul. It is true that Paul does not feel loved by Paula. But it is not necessarily true that Paula does not love Paul. Paula may, indeed, have done a poor job of showing her love, but if Paula says she loves Paul, and Paul says she doesn't, Paula is the authority on how Paula feels.
Stan believes he is being visited by aliens about once a month, who paralyze him and perform frightening experiments on his body that leave almost no trace, but occasionally he does find unexplained bruises on his body in the morning after these nocturnal visits. That Stan is frightened is a subjective claim and if Stan claims he is frightened, that claim is most likely true. That Stan is visited by anal-probing aliens is an objective claim, and is either true or not true whether Stan makes the claim or not. In a dispute over whether or not he is being visited by aliens, Stan's word is not actually the best piece of evidence because of what we know of the fallibility of human perception. But whether or not Stan feels FRIGHTENED is a question that only Stan can answer & his word is the final answer.
Keith claims that all women view sex as a tool to lure a mate into taking care of them. Sarah stands in front of him and says she is a woman who does not. Keith insists that since all women feel that way, Sarah must also. Sarah insists that she likes sex for sex and can take care of herself just fine, thank you very much. Keith is making a claim about someone else's personal, subjective feelings. The person he is making a claim about rejects the claim. In this case, because the claim is about Sarah's feelings, then "because Sarah said so" is a legitimate reason to believe her claim over Keith's claim.
Peter says that atheists are just mad at god. Adam, who is an atheist, says he is not mad at anyone, except maybe Peter for being an ass. Peter sticks to his claim while Adam patiently explains that one can't be mad at something one doesn't believe even exists, it would be like being mad at Professor Snape, whom he knows is a fictional character. Since the claim is about Adam's personal beliefs, it is reasonable to assume that Adam is correct and Peter is wrong on the basis that Adam is the authority on Adam's own beliefs.
People who are sticklers for things like logical fallacies are often accused of utilizing them when their
opponent is losing an argument, if that opponent doesn't really understand the logical fallacy to begin with. In most things, claiming that X is true because So-And-So said so is a logical fallacy. But when accusing someone else of feeling something they claim they are not feeling, although this is technically a matter of empirical fact also (either he is feeling this or he is not feeling this), believing the truth of the claim made by the person who is feeling the feelings - because he is the authority on the subject and made the claim - is not a logical fallacy in this case.
So, the Argument From Authority as a logical fallacy is when someone claims that something is true, and his evidence for the truth of the statement is that a particular authority figure said so. In the empirical realm, statements of fact are either true or not true, and they are either true or not true no matter who says them. The truth of the matter is not dependent upon who makes the claim.
But when a person makes a claim about his subjective feelings, in a dispute about whether or not he feels those feelings, the evidence for the truth of the statement does, indeed, rest on the person making the statement. Who is making the statement about a given person's feelings is actually an important factor in judging the truth of the statement. One can claim that another is not behaving consistently with his claims of his feelings, but, ultimately, he is the final authority on what his feelings are and that is a legitimate use of calling on an authority as evidence for a claim's validity.
