4 ms·

As I indicated, Galileo was an expert dissident, who had spent years looking at the question, and so he could rationally reject the consensus of the other exper

As I indicated, Galileo was an expert dissident, who had spent years looking at the question, and so he could rationally reject the consensus of the other experts. You can still do that today. A expert person today can absolutely disagree with climate change or any other consensus theory. But for most of these issues, the amount of time required to be an expert, even a dissenting expert, is counted in 5-10 years of full time work on the subject. If someone is such a person and they disagree with climate change consensus, I highly encourage them to continue pursuing their line of reasoning. We need people like them in all fields. On the other hand, if someone has read a couple of books, or taken a few courses, or looked at the issue for a couple of months, I am going to completely ignore them. Particularly, a common person in the 1600s, who had not spent years studying the stars, but claimed that the Aristotelians were wrong, was doing himself a disservice.

yters 7y ago
Alright, so it looks like the conclusion of this discussion is Sagan is not quite correct, there are plenty of situations where arguments from authority are indeed valid, if the authority is conferred by the consensus of experts in the subject. One is only justified in dissenting from the authority of experts if one has spent 10-15 years diving deep into the subject to become an expert themselves. I assume another area where dissent from authority is justified is when experts make claims outside their realm of expertise, since they themselves have not fulfilled the requirement to become an authority in the field. This also brings up the question as to what makes an expert. Is someone a self appointed expert? Or, if a group appoints themselves as experts, if they've studied a subject enough? Or, is expertise validated empirically by making predictions that are correct more often than those made by non experts? If a body of labelled experts make predictions which consistently are incorrect, are they experts? Do they retain their authority conferred by being a group of experts? What we really need is a consensus of experts in expertise and authority :)
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  Nope. You are using the word "authority" in a way that Carl Sagan did not. When he says "argument from authority", he means that someone declares that what they say is true is because of their position in the sociopolitical hierarchy, and no other reason. On the other hand, an expert claims that what they say is true because they have spent 10 years to distinguish truth from falsehood; and you can read their analysis and papers to figure out exactly what they discovered. Morever, scientific models and theories are presented in a way that, in principle, some other expert could replicate exactly what the expert has done and reach the same conclusions. So Carl Sagan is arguing against "argument from sociopolitical hierarchy to prove objective facts about the natural world". He is, and most reasonable people, are in favor of "argument from expert who has demonstrably done a lot of work on the subject, and you don't have the time to go through the whole exercise yourself, so you will believe her". Of course, as you say, determining, who is or is not an expert is a very difficult question in the real world. I am not going to comment on it.
  - yters 7y ago
    I've never run across anyone who declares what they say is true because of their sociopolitical position. Not even the pope in the Catholic church makes this claim. Who does Sagan have in mind?
    - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
      ??? You just mentioned Galileo. The Church disagreed with him because god had made arguments from authority in the bible about Earth not moving etc. Bad school teachers sometimes make these arguments. "This is so, because I said so". Or "because the book says so". I don't know if you are a scientist, but one can often see young grad students believing in something only because the senior scientist believes it, and not because of actual good reasons. You also see arguments from authorities in non-scientific debates. "We must believe X because because historical figure Y said so."
      - yters 7y ago
        I think you should read up a bit more on the Galileo situation.
yters 7y ago
Alright, here's another example. Let's say I'm living in Nazi Germany, and the top population geneticists are unanimous in their opinion that Jews are an inferior and evil race, seeking to undermine the volk. I'm pretty sure they're wrong, Jews seem just as human as myself. Am I justified in dissenting from the authority of experts, even though I myself have not put in the 10-15 years of researching population genetics to become an expert? I would say so. What gives me this right to dissent from the authority of consensus of experts?

yters 7y ago

Alright, so it looks like the conclusion of this discussion is Sagan is not quite correct, there are plenty of situations where arguments from authority are indeed valid, if the authority is conferred by the consensus of experts in the subject. One is only justified in dissenting from the authority of experts if one has spent 10-15 years diving deep into the subject to become an expert themselves. I assume another area where dissent from authority is justified is when experts make claims outside their realm of expertise, since they themselves have not fulfilled the requirement to become an authority in the field. This also brings up the question as to what makes an expert. Is someone a self appointed expert? Or, if a group appoints themselves as experts, if they've studied a subject enough? Or, is expertise validated empirically by making predictions that are correct more often than those made by non experts? If a body of labelled experts make predictions which consistently are incorrect, are they experts? Do they retain their authority conferred by being a group of experts? What we really need is a consensus of experts in expertise and authority :)

abdullahkhalids 7y ago
Nope. You are using the word "authority" in a way that Carl Sagan did not. When he says "argument from authority", he means that someone declares that what they say is true is because of their position in the sociopolitical hierarchy, and no other reason. On the other hand, an expert claims that what they say is true because they have spent 10 years to distinguish truth from falsehood; and you can read their analysis and papers to figure out exactly what they discovered. Morever, scientific models and theories are presented in a way that, in principle, some other expert could replicate exactly what the expert has done and reach the same conclusions. So Carl Sagan is arguing against "argument from sociopolitical hierarchy to prove objective facts about the natural world". He is, and most reasonable people, are in favor of "argument from expert who has demonstrably done a lot of work on the subject, and you don't have the time to go through the whole exercise yourself, so you will believe her". Of course, as you say, determining, who is or is not an expert is a very difficult question in the real world. I am not going to comment on it.
- yters 7y ago
  I've never run across anyone who declares what they say is true because of their sociopolitical position. Not even the pope in the Catholic church makes this claim. Who does Sagan have in mind?
  - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
    ??? You just mentioned Galileo. The Church disagreed with him because god had made arguments from authority in the bible about Earth not moving etc. Bad school teachers sometimes make these arguments. "This is so, because I said so". Or "because the book says so". I don't know if you are a scientist, but one can often see young grad students believing in something only because the senior scientist believes it, and not because of actual good reasons. You also see arguments from authorities in non-scientific debates. "We must believe X because because historical figure Y said so."
    - yters 7y ago
      I think you should read up a bit more on the Galileo situation.

yters 7y ago

Alright, here's another example. Let's say I'm living in Nazi Germany, and the top population geneticists are unanimous in their opinion that Jews are an inferior and evil race, seeking to undermine the volk. I'm pretty sure they're wrong, Jews seem just as human as myself. Am I justified in dissenting from the authority of experts, even though I myself have not put in the 10-15 years of researching population genetics to become an expert? I would say so. What gives me this right to dissent from the authority of consensus of experts?