3 ms·

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

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.
dntbnmpls 7y 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?
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  Who do you think are appealed to as an authority? A lowly postdoc or the senior scientist? Eg., From the wiki page, "LaCour’s impossible-seeming results were treated as truth, in part because of the weight [the study's co-author] Green's name carried". I clearly stated "some other expert could replicate exactly what the expert has done". As a working scientist, and I am aware of the objective nature of science. I am trying to answer the question, "why believe in something an expert says?" I am sure you have not spent years verifying what the climate change experts say, but you believe them anyway. Why?
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > Who do you think are appealed to as an authority? Anyone deemed an authority. Priests, doctors, parents, teachers, TA, etc. > A lowly postdoc or the senior scientist? Once again, the point is that the merit of the assertion/claim is independent of the "authority". 1+1=2 isn't more true or false because a "lowly" postdoc or a senior scientist said it. Especially when it comes to science, it's the experiment and empirical evidence/data that matters. > I clearly stated "some other expert could replicate exactly what the expert has done". You are still not getting what "appeal to authority" is. > As a working scientist, and I am aware of the objective nature of science. Honestly your job status doesn't matter. Why even bothering writing this sentence? > I am trying to answer the question, "why believe in something an expert says?" That's not what you were doing. You were misinterpreting and misrepresenting what carl sagan wrote. > I am sure you have not spent years verifying what the climate change experts say, but you believe them anyway. Why? It doesn't take the same amount of time to verify something as it does to answer/research/etc. Which would take you longer to do. Solve a sudoku problem or verify an already solved sudoku problem? P vs NP?

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.

dntbnmpls 7y 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?

abdullahkhalids 7y ago
Who do you think are appealed to as an authority? A lowly postdoc or the senior scientist? Eg., From the wiki page, "LaCour’s impossible-seeming results were treated as truth, in part because of the weight [the study's co-author] Green's name carried". I clearly stated "some other expert could replicate exactly what the expert has done". As a working scientist, and I am aware of the objective nature of science. I am trying to answer the question, "why believe in something an expert says?" I am sure you have not spent years verifying what the climate change experts say, but you believe them anyway. Why?
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > Who do you think are appealed to as an authority? Anyone deemed an authority. Priests, doctors, parents, teachers, TA, etc. > A lowly postdoc or the senior scientist? Once again, the point is that the merit of the assertion/claim is independent of the "authority". 1+1=2 isn't more true or false because a "lowly" postdoc or a senior scientist said it. Especially when it comes to science, it's the experiment and empirical evidence/data that matters. > I clearly stated "some other expert could replicate exactly what the expert has done". You are still not getting what "appeal to authority" is. > As a working scientist, and I am aware of the objective nature of science. Honestly your job status doesn't matter. Why even bothering writing this sentence? > I am trying to answer the question, "why believe in something an expert says?" That's not what you were doing. You were misinterpreting and misrepresenting what carl sagan wrote. > I am sure you have not spent years verifying what the climate change experts say, but you believe them anyway. Why? It doesn't take the same amount of time to verify something as it does to answer/research/etc. Which would take you longer to do. Solve a sudoku problem or verify an already solved sudoku problem? P vs NP?