Is an appeal to authority a proper justification of knowledge?

[variant]

Yes.

We all (I hope) look for the best qualified expert to teach us knowledge.

People will often seek out "authoritative" sources that confirm their biases and ignore those that do not.

 

[Hetta]

People will often seek out "authoritative" sources that confirm their biases and ignore those that do not.

Of course.

"D'accord" used in this sense really sums it up. LOL.

 

[lesliedellow]

The name of the fallacy is appeal to inappropriate authority.

A Nobel prize winning physicist could reasonably be appealed to as an authority in his discipline, but when it came to philosophy, his fame would make his opinion no more valid than anybody else's.

 

[Tree of Life]

I feel like a lot of times, people tend to confuse "appeal to authority" with "appeal to expertise".

The two are distinctily different, eventhough in practice the lines might get blurry - especially for general day-to-day things.

I see the difference as following:
Appeal to expertise: to trust a person on his word about things he is generally considered an expert in. For example, if Dawkins explains something about biological evolution.

Appeal to authority: to simply accept whatever Dawkins says about anyting for whatever reason.

I see the appeal to expertise and appeal to authority as synonymous. It's the expertise that gives a person authority to speak on a matter. Dawkins is an authority in his field. But this does not make him an authority in other matters. So yes, just because he's an expert scientist doesn't mean that we should accept all that he says about anything.

 

[Tree of Life]

If you do feel appealing to science is an appeal to authority, then you should quit going to the doctor. No more using hospitals, or phones, or cars, or planes. These are all products of science.

Appealing to scientists in discussing scientific matters is certainly an appeal to authority. Why does this require me to stop going to the doctor? I go to the doctor precisely because I trust his authority.

 

[Tree of Life]

That's a tough question.

This is one of the reasons I drifted away from Eastern Orthodoxy- ultimately the major apologetic of the "post-Evangelical Eastern Orthodox conversionism movement" (my own terminology for the flood of evangelicals moving to Eastern Christianity) is down to an appeal to authority, an authority they see lacking in Protestantism. But as I spent more time immersed in the Orthodox Church, I came to doubt the relationship between appealing to authority and being justified in ones beliefs and practices.

Of course, I don't even accept the Protestant side of that equation, appealing to the Bible. Which is one reason I've drifted away from organized religion. I'm not longer interested in hearing about authority claims, now days I just know the truth when I hear it and I feel like I'm finally finding my way again after a lot of confusion. This may bring me back eventually to a religious community, even a Christian church, but maybe it won't.

Sounds like you've become the ultimate authority. If it seems right to you then accept it. If it seems wrong to you then reject it.

 

[Tree of Life]

When the knowledge you seek is factual...and the authorities you're choosing from deal in facts....then appealing to them for knowledge is generally safe. When the knowledge you seek is factual...and the authorities whose expertise with that knowledge primarily deal in opinion/interpretation/guesswork...then you're better off doing the research yourself. When the knowledge you seek is non-factual....everyone considers themselves an authority lol.

I hope that helps.

I'm confused. What's non-factual knowledge?

 

[Tree of Life]

Indeed. Even in science this is the case -- very little of what scientists do can be replicated at home.

But what's the problem, as long as there is evidence that the authority is trustworthy?

I don't think there's any inherent problem in appealing to authority. We would be lost without it. Knowledge is something that the human race has collectively. It's more of a communal pursuit than an individual pursuit.

 

[Davian]

I don't understand what the difficulty with this is.

You just say "appeals to authority are second hand knowledge".

There is nothing wrong with becoming second hand to a proper authority (ie. God).
...

Do you consider Sherlock Holmes to be a proper authority for knowledge?

 

[bhsmte]

Appealing to scientists in discussing scientific matters is certainly an appeal to authority. Why does this require me to stop going to the doctor? I go to the doctor precisely because I trust his authority.

You trust the doctors knowledge, training which gives him or her authority on the issue at hand.

Of course, this doesn't stop people from self diagnosing themselves and or people from seeking one expert opinion out of 100, that they latch onto, because it fits their ideology.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sounds like you've become the ultimate authority. If it seems right to you then accept it. If it seems wrong to you then reject it.

If you want to see it that way... OK. Personally, I see it as a lot more responsible than just accepting somebody else's explanation for no other reason than because many people in your culture happen to agree with it.

 

[Tree of Life]

You trust the doctors knowledge, training which gives him or her authority on the issue at hand.

Of course, this doesn't stop people from self diagnosing themselves and or people from seeking one expert opinion out of 100, that they latch onto, because it fits their ideology.

Right. We may seek other opinions especially if we don't like what one authority says (this is usually the reason why we'll seek another opinion). This is just to say that even our authorities can be wrong. Even expert doctors can make mistakes and so even their authority is limited.

 

[bhsmte]

If you want to see it that way... OK. Personally, I see it as a lot more responsible than just accepting somebody else's explanation for no other reason than because many people in your culture happen to agree with it.

This is where objective evidence to support an authorities explanation, becomes the great equalizer. That evidence will be there, whether some like it or not.

 

[Tree of Life]

If you want to see it that way... OK. Personally, I see it as a lot more responsible than just accepting somebody else's explanation for no other reason than because many people in your culture happen to agree with it.

You're right. Accepting an explanation just because it's popular is not a great reason. It's epistemically irresponsible.

But accepting or rejecting an explanation purely because it seems right or wrong is also epistemically irresponsible. We've got to have rules in our quest for knowledge that we submit ourselves to.

 

[bhsmte]

Right. We may seek other opinions especially if we don't like what one authority says (this is usually the reason why we'll seek another opinion). This is just to say that even our authorities can be wrong. Even expert doctors can make mistakes and so even their authority is limited.

Of course, any expert can be wrong, that goes without saying.

When you have a certain field of experts, say doctors and 99 out of 100 have a specific conclusion on a patient and 1 has a completely different opinion. Hard for me to fathom, the 99 qualified experts are wrong.

 

[Tree of Life]

Of course, any expert can be wrong, that goes without saying.

When you have a certain field of experts, say doctors and 99 out of 100 have a specific conclusion on a patient and 1 has a completely different opinion. Hard for me to fathom, the 99 qualified experts are wrong.

It's unlikely that the 1 out of 99 will be right.

But if 99 doctors say that there's no chance of survival and 1 doctor says there's a chance what are you going to believe?

 

[Hetta]

It's unlikely that the 1 out of 99 will be right.

But if 99 doctors say that there's no chance of survival and 1 doctor says there's a chance what are you going to believe?

I'm going to believe the 99. The 1 is probably a crank trying to sell me some snake oil.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm going to believe the 99. The 1 is probably a crank trying to sell me some snake oil.

It's unlikely that a patient would literally see 100 doctors. But let's say that my 3 year old son was "terminally" ill and we see 10 doctors. If 9 say that there's no chance of survival and 1 says that there's a chance, I'm going to put my money on the one. If one qualified authority believes it's possible for my son to survive then I'm going to pursue that path and fight for his life.

Would you not do the same?

 

[bhsmte]

It's unlikely that the 1 out of 99 will be right.

But if 99 doctors say that there's no chance of survival and 1 doctor says there's a chance what are you going to believe?

The one's who base their judgment on the evidence, using logic, not emotion.

 

[Hetta]

It's unlikely that a patient would literally see 100 doctors. But let's say that my 3 year old son was "terminally" ill and we see 10 doctors. If 9 say that there's no chance of survival and 1 says that there's a chance, I'm going to put my money on the one. If one qualified authority believes it's possible for my son to survive then I'm going to pursue that path and fight for his life.

Would you not do the same?

That's called an appeal to emotion and I'm not playing.