The fact that Monroe uses this product is not an argument that explains why you should too or why it is superior to other products.
The Appeal to Authority is next on our journey through the magical land of incorrect thinking. This fallacy really can be summed up completely in a nutshell, but I’ll take a new angle on it too. Here’s the standard format: X is true because someone says so. The reason this is a fallacy is because the universe does not conform itself to what someone says. The Wise One can say the sky is green, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is really blue. The fallacious logic implies that if the Wise One changed his or her mind, reality would change.
Now, why is this not a fallacy when someone says that, say, “The universe is expanding and I know this because that’s what I was taught in physics class”? Are the creationists right when they say that science is just taken on faith and accepted authority?
Some people rename this fallacy the “Appeal to Unqualified Authority” but I don’t think that quite solves the issue. The problem isn’t that the authority is necessarily unqualified. After all, the worlds biggest fool can be right if they say something true and the smartest person can be wrong if they say that the sky is green. No, the issue isn’t the qualification of the speaker. What we need to realize is that an authority doesn’t say something and that is what makes it true. Rather, the authority (the real, qualified authority) says something because it is true. Gravity doesn’t have an acceleration rate of 9.8m/s/s because Stephan Hawking says it does; Stephan Hawking says gravity has an acceleration rate of 9.8m/s/s because it’s true.
This ties into an issue that I have come across when talking to some people about fun science stuff, like the origins of our universe or black holes or something. Eventually, after the Q and A runs long enough, I run out of answers because I don’t know everything about a subject. Eventually, I have to fall back on, “Well, I believe that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, even if I have no better reason to believe it than because that is what the scientific consensus is.” The scientific process has proven itself dependable, even if it is still a learning process. We wouldn’t have put footprints on the moon if scientists didn’t know what they were talking about. To quote Brian Dunning “It is rational to accept the scientific consensus, even if you don’t completely understand the evidence behind it. It is irrational to disagree with it for that reason.” Personal incredulity or ignorance does not trump the scientific consensus.
Keep walking us through the fallacies of logic. Too many of us either forget or never were properly oriented.
Thanks for the encouragement! There are tons of resources for learning about them, so I’m making an effort to put an angle on them that I haven’t seen before, or at least an angle that isn’t commonly explored.
Pingback: Stuff you may have missed for September 15, 2011
“This ties into an issue that I have come across when talking to some people about fun science stuff, like the origins of our universe or black holes or something. Eventually, after the Q and A runs long enough, I run out of answers because I don’t know everything about a subject…”
This whole blog entry makes me think of Pyrrho the Greek Skeptic who pointed out that all argument is either circular or an endless chain of argument hanging from nothing. Everything has to be proven by everything else but the Q and Q keeps going and remains incomplete or goes in endless circles. To say that I know nothing is actually saying too much. I don’t even know that. Centuries later, philosopher Hume would demonstrate that nothing has existence except by all other things, all is circular or an endless chain. Centuries later, in mathematics we have Kurt Godel’s “incompleteness theorem” which pretty much proves that nothing can be proven except by any and all other proofs. again, it’s circular or the Q and A goes on forever, as you say.
Thanks for inspiring thoughts, thanks for some high thinking.
Pyrrho’s position now has a third horn on it, and goes by the name Munchhausen’s Trilemma. I’m not sure if you’re advocating radical skepticism here or not. Hume certainly wasn’t. He was saying that we don’t have logical proof of a lot of the things that we take for granted like the soundness of inductive reasoning or the self. Hume himself was an Empiricist, not a radical skeptic. And you’ve got me on Godel. He proved that basic mathematical notation is sort self defeating.
I should do a post on this, but my nutshell response is that brilliant thinkers have shown deep flaws in our basic reasoning, but they haven’t shown that we don’t know anything. The self exists, even if Hume is right in saying that we can’t experience it directly. Incidentally, many contemplative traditions would disagree with that statement. As far as Godel, anything above algebra is still beyond me in math. But Godel did no show that mathematics is void of certainty. If it was, we wouldn’t have successfully put footprints on the moon or built computers. I think what he revealed was the strange fact that, despite having some confusing axioms, math works anyway.
Thanks for your comment. I always enjoy long and thoughtful replies. I enjoy short one’s too (they mean someone read my stuff and that makes me happy), but the long ones are thought provoking.
Pingback: What’s Up With Faith? | Think That Through
Pingback: Reader Feedback – What’s Up With Faith? | Think That Through
Pingback: Logical Fallacies 101: Argumentum Ad Populum | Think That Through
Reblogged this on iLook China.
Hi Steven, I just discovered your posts and I thought I’d wander around and comment on some of your posts, if you don’t mind.
You are asserting that science is a legitimate authority. (The subtext suggests that you are responding to some Creationists who have suggested that science is not a legitimate authority). I agree that science does have authority, but only on matters dealing with the physical universe. No one would say that even on these matters is science always right, but where it is not, it will eventually figure that out.
I would like to assert that just because science is a legitimate authority on some questions, does not make it a legitimate authority on all questions. Science is only a legitimate authority on questions regarding the material world. And it is not enough to say that there is no other reality besides the physical reality. If science makes this claim, it has moved into an area in which it is not an authority.
When science does this it is making a claim that is in the same category as any faith claim, and although it isn’t irrational, it is non-rational. Just as the claims of those who believe that a creator is behind it all.
I always appreciate and encourage polite feedback.
I don’t have time to reply now, but I will take some time in my next post to dealing with the questions you raised. It might be a while though. I have been working 7 days a week and my schedule isn’t going to slow down too much in the foreseeable future.
What I do have time to cover now though is that assuming that everything we can observe constitutes the whole of the universe isn’t irrational. If one assumes that there is “something else” without good evidence, that’s where irrationality comes in.
For example, if my mechanic tells me my transmission is shot (true story) I can assume the reason my car doesn’t work is completely terrestrial and has a wholly naturalistic explanation. This is really the only reasonable assumption to draw from the evidence. If I assume that there must be magical forces or beings involved it slips into the irrational. I can’t conclude that it’s gods or goblins ruining my car from the evidence.