4 ms·

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 ind

by yters 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
      I think you should read up a bit more on the Galileo situation.
- dntbnmpls 6y ago
  > 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. Not it at all. He's talking about the well known logical fallacy of "appealing to authority". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority > 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". Nope. He's arguing the opposite. He is saying an argument relies entirely on the merits of the argument itself, not from an authority. 1+1=2 not because your dad or your math teacher ( aka authority ) said so, it's because of the mathematical logic. An uneducated person could tell you 1+1=2 and it would be just as true regardless of how much "expertise" or "authority" someone has. > Of course, as you say, determining, who is or is not an expert is a very difficult question in the real world. The point of "appeal to authority" is to disregard titles or authority or "expertise" and check the facts/evidence. Meaning the facts/evidence is what matters rather than the authority providing it. In other words, a^2 + b+2 = c+2 because of the mathematical proof, not because Pythagoras said so. If you don't even know what "argument from authority" is, why are you acting like you know what you are talking about. Even worse, why are you putting words in Carl Sagan's mouth?

by yters 6y ago

abdullahkhalids 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
    I think you should read up a bit more on the Galileo situation.
dntbnmpls 6y ago
> 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. Not it at all. He's talking about the well known logical fallacy of "appealing to authority". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority > 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". Nope. He's arguing the opposite. He is saying an argument relies entirely on the merits of the argument itself, not from an authority. 1+1=2 not because your dad or your math teacher ( aka authority ) said so, it's because of the mathematical logic. An uneducated person could tell you 1+1=2 and it would be just as true regardless of how much "expertise" or "authority" someone has. > Of course, as you say, determining, who is or is not an expert is a very difficult question in the real world. The point of "appeal to authority" is to disregard titles or authority or "expertise" and check the facts/evidence. Meaning the facts/evidence is what matters rather than the authority providing it. In other words, a^2 + b+2 = c+2 because of the mathematical proof, not because Pythagoras said so. If you don't even know what "argument from authority" is, why are you acting like you know what you are talking about. Even worse, why are you putting words in Carl Sagan's mouth?