Is an appeal to authority a proper justification of knowledge?

[Tree of Life]

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

I think of it more as a real life application of a philosophical principle.

 

[bhsmte]

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?

Of course I would, because you are talking about a life and death scenario and who wouldn't roll over every rock to keep any chance alive.

Life and death, black and white is not a good analogy though.

Let's say 9 doctors say your son needs to be treated with a specific treatment protocol, that they all agree is the best course. But, one doctor, disagrees and happens to be a devout Christian and states; those treatments recommended by the other doctors go against what God would want and he only recommends praying to help your 3 year old child.

Would you follow the 9 doctors, or the 1 outlier?

 

[Hetta]

I think of it more as a real life application of a philosophical principle.

Look up appeal to emotion. Or I can give you the definition (Wikipedia because I'm being lazy):

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also, this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several other logical fallacies.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.

Conclusively, the appeal to emotion fallacy presents a perspective intended to be superior to reason. Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.

And think of the children is given as an example.

Think of the children (and similar phrases citing the interests of children including what about the children) can be used to justify why something should, or should not, be done. When used as a plea for pity, this appeal to emotion can constitute a potential logical fallacy, while when used as an appeal for sympathy for weaker members of society, or the social good of the long-term health and viability of a society, it can constitute an argument for social justice generally accepted as appropriate.

Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bhsmte]

I think of it more as a real life application of a philosophical principle.

It is an appeal to emotion and emotion, can get in the way of being objective and making the right judgments, based on the facts.

Doctors are basically scientists and they are supposed to look at the clinical evidence and make an objective call, not an emotional call.

 

[Tree of Life]

Of course I would, because you are talking about a life and death scenario and who wouldn't roll over every rock to keep any chance alive.

Life and death, black and white is not a good analogy though.

Let's say 9 doctors say your son needs to be treated with a specific treatment protocol, that they all agree is the best course. But, one doctor, disagrees and happens to be a devout Christian and states; those treatments recommended by the other doctors go against what God would want and he only recommends praying to help your 3 year old child.

Would you follow the 9 doctors, or the 1 outlier?

This is also an interesting analogy because it mixes in a whole other issue that's emotionally charged - namely theistic and Christian commitments.

I would never see a Christian doctor who recommends praying instead of practicing medicine.

 

[Tree of Life]

It is an appeal to emotion and emotion, can get in the way of being objective and making the right judgments, based on the facts.

Doctors are basically scientists and they are supposed to look at the clinical evidence and make an objective call, not an emotional call.

It may not be an emotional call for the doctor but it's an emotional decision for the patient/client. To ask a person to complete remove emotion from their decision making is to ask them to do the impossible. It's to ask them to cease being a person for a moment. We can't do it. Now, this doesn't mean that we should be governed only by emotion or primarily by emotion. But we cannot make an emotionless decision.

 

[Tree of Life]

Hetta, upon reading the wiki article, I don't see how my application of the philosophical principle is an appeal to emotion.

 

[bhsmte]

It may not be an emotional call for the doctor but it's an emotional decision for the patient/client. To ask a person to complete remove emotion from their decision making is to ask them to do the impossible. It's to ask them to cease being a person for a moment. We can't do it. Now, this doesn't mean that we should be governed only by emotion or primarily by emotion. But we cannot make an emotionless decision.

Of course emotion will play into it for the family, no question.

I am talking about whether an opinion given by an authority is more likely correct, because it is based on clinical evidence and not emotion. I have been in healthcare for 20 years and doctors are highly analytical creatures and they need to be.

 

[Hetta]

Hetta, upon reading the wiki article, I don't see how my application of the philosophical principle is an appeal to emotion.

Of course you don't. But it is.

 

[Tree of Life]

Of course you don't. But it is.

Nah. It aint.

 

[Hetta]

And at that point I'll leave you to your fantasy.

 

[Tree of Life]

 

[ThinkForYourself]

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 would believe that the 99/100 are probably correct.

I would investigate to see if the 1/100 might offer a long shot solution.

I would NOT waste time asking an invisible sky daddy for help.

 

[Tree of Life]

I would believe that the 99/100 are probably correct.

I would investigate to see if the 1/100 might offer a long shot solution.

I would NOT waste time asking an invisible sky daddy for help.

Do you normally promote your atheism in conversations that are dealing with other issues?

 

[Davian]

Is that God?

 

[Tree of Life]

Is that God?

Nah it's just a wiz.

 

[Davian]

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?

Is that 1 doctor, Dr Oz?

 

[Davian]

Is that God?

Nah it's just a wiz.

A powerful wizard indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9IhMHPInVk

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

There is nothing such as "objectivity" in the absolute sense.

 

[FireDragon76]

Now, this doesn't mean that we should be governed only by emotion or primarily by emotion. But we cannot make an emotionless decision.

I think this is also true, though its generally a good idea to make sure the emotions that motivate our decisions are understood. Many people essentially make decisions unconsciously in this manner, and I don't think its particularly helpful. But nobody can be making completely emotionally unweighted decisions. Even the Stoics acknowledged this, which is why they spent so much time on asceticism- purposefully confronting ones negative emotions.