Is an appeal to authority a proper justification of knowledge?

[keith99]

So if I read on Wolfram Alpha that the moon is X miles away from the earth, and this information is correct, do I have knowledge?

If they give you a fixed number that does not change then you have misinformation.

There should be some sites out there that give accurate information for any specific time.

I mention this because a couple of decades ago there was a planatary alignment, a lot of planets more of less lined up. Some fools made a big deal about this, saying the stress would trigger earthquakes.

Only one problem, the moon was not particularly close to the earth during that timeframe. Just a few years earlier it had been and the stress because of gravatational differential had been significantly greater.

 

[quatona]

This would be a radically skeptical or subjectivist take on knowledge. Probably the least popular epistemology out there.

Well, "knowledge" in my understanding is just a word, to begin with. It´s not an external concept that we discover. Defining words is not an epistemological process.

So this definitely doesn't describe the entire conversation.

Sorry, I don´t understand this. Which conversation?

If your philosophical assumptions don't apply to real life why stick with your philosophical assumptions? Why not just go with something that we can more readily live with?

Again: I wasn´t talking about philosophical assumptions - I was talking about our use of words.
"Knowledge" is used in different meanings in different contexts, like most words. Typically, when someone says to someone else e.g. "I know the library is open on Saturdays" they aren´t intending to make a meta-epistemological statement or to provoke a philosophical discussion about the possibility of 100% firm knowledge. They are saying "my information is as good as it gets - for practical purposes. it´s sufficiently reliable to have us act as though I have knowledge".

But to answer your question: Personally, my meta-epistemological basis is radical constructivism. Even though I (axiomatically) believe there exists something, I do not believe that objects exists. Objects are a product of our minds´ will to separate *that which is* into bits and pieces, according to the mind´s needs.
In "real life", though, I simply accept the rules of the game we have invented, so to speak. I speak and act as though objects exist, and the divisions of our minds existed out there. Most of the time my meta-epistemological position is forgotten.

Think of it like playing chess. When I play chess I simply accept that the castle can only move straight. From a meta-chess perspective I am aware that the castle can be moved in pretty much every direction - even in three dimensions, but when I am playing I am not even considering these possibilities (I forget about my meta-chess perspective). I have a silent agreement that we are playing chess, after all.
Moving the castle in zig-zags and then asking my objecting opponent "How do you know that the castle can move only straight - I have just proven the opposite, after all." would mean mingling chess perspective and meta-chess perspective. Category error.

 

[quatona]

So if I read on Wolfram Alpha that the moon is X miles away from the earth, and this information is correct, do I have knowledge?

Just so we get an idea where you are coming from:
What, in your use of the word "knowledge" am I required to do in order to be justified in saying "(I know that) the distance between A and B is X"?
Would I have to measure the distance myself? Would I have to check out the accuracy of my measuring instrument? Would I have to check the accuracy of the method with which I check the accuracy of my measuring instrument? And so on and so forth?

 

[Ana the Ist]

how come, in (for instance) africa in villages over one hundred miles from any medical facility, there's more "faith" healings every week
than there is
in the untied sates in cities where there's a docotor or 2 for every block
in several years?

real hard question. huh? eh? no. not really.

it doesn't take 'blind trust' to go to the doctor who offers hope of healing and testing what he says (test everything anyway - if people tested the "official" approach to trouble in the body, they would never go back to the "official" approach!-they just blindly allow the "official approach" to dictate what they do and the results even bad results and a lot(A LOT) of money.

just like people who trust what their priest or pastor says without testing - they haven't even read the Bible through in many cases,
to see what is true and what isn't.
so people trust what their "official" politically correct dokotor says
WITHOUT TESTING IT, without even getting a second opinion too many times.
and if they were able to JUST READ UP ON THE SUBJECT......
just read up on the subject.... themselves, instead of trusting the money maker,
just read up on the subject (prayerfully research it with hope and joy and TRUSTING WHO >>>> THE CREATOR !!! of course)
just read up on the subject ----
but 95% won't bother.
even if it makes the difference between life and death. between recovering and getting worse. between spending $12 to $3000 instead of spending over $30000......

just read up on the subject. that's all it takes much of the time.
or
if they know what the Bible says,(95% people don't have a clue)
it's even simpler ..... (but it won't be reprinted here - go read it through).

I'm not sure why you quoted me or what you're saying here has to do with my post.

 

[Tree of Life]

Just so we get an idea where you are coming from:
What, in your use of the word "knowledge" am I required to do in order to be justified in saying "(I know that) the distance between A and B is X"?
Would I have to measure the distance myself? Would I have to check out the accuracy of my measuring instrument? Would I have to check the accuracy of the method with which I check the accuracy of my measuring instrument? And so on and so forth?

There are many justifications of knowledge. I'm simply asking whether or not an appeal to authority is a proper justification.

 

[sarxweh]

Is there another justification? Even sensory experience could be an "authority".

What else is there?

 

[Tree of Life]

It seems to me as well that some justifications are deeper than others - some produce deeper knowledge.

For instance, if I read that the Pacific Ocean is 2.672 miles deep on Wolfram Alpha then it can be reasonably said that I know the depth of the Pacific Ocean. But if you think about it, all I've done is read some words on a screen. Still, I have knowledge. But if I actually go to the deepest part of the ocean myself and personally measure the depth - even if I experience the depth by descending all the way to the bottom - then I know the depth of the Pacific Ocean in a "deeper" and "fuller" way.

So though there are many ways to justify claims to knowledge, some justifications produce deeper knowledge and other justifications produce more superficial knowledge of the same thing.

 

[Tree of Life]

Is there another justification? Even sensory experience could be an "authority".

What else is there?

Logical processes like deduction and induction. Personal experience. Revelation. Appeals to authority. Coherency. Self-evident truths. Pragmatism. These can all be justifications.

 

[sarxweh]

Logical processes like deduction and induction. Personal experience. Revelation. Appeals to authority. Coherency. Self-evident truths. Pragmatism. These can all be justifications.

Is desire on the list?

 

[Tree of Life]

Is desire on the list?

I couldn't imagine desire being an acceptable justification. It at least won't be persuasive to others.

For instance, "I believe p because I want to believe p" might be good enough for you, but it won't go far with others.

 

[Davian]

Is desire on the list?

I recall John Lennox resorting to this at the wrap-up of the God Delusion debate with Dawkins.

In response to Dawkins' comment on morality: "He's saying there is a bottom, no justice. The human heart cries for justice."

I felt embarrassed for him.

I couldn't imagine desire being an acceptable justification. It at least won't be persuasive to others.

For instance, "I believe p because I want to believe p" might be good enough for you, but it won't go far with others.

Not far at all.

 

[quatona]

There are many justifications of knowledge. I'm simply asking whether or not an appeal to authority is a proper justification.

And you have my answer: Depends on how exactly you define "appeal to authority", on the context, on the relevance of the claim, on the purpose, on the situation.

See, I have put quite some time and effort in trying to address this interesting question, but your responses seem to tell me that you aren´t interested in an in depth consideration of the topic you have brought up.
Thus, I have no idea what the purpose of the thread is, anymore.

Anyway, thanks for asking a question that provoked some thoughts with me - even though they are of no interest to you.

 

[quatona]

It seems to me as well that some justifications are deeper than others - some produce deeper knowledge.

For instance, if I read that the Pacific Ocean is 2.672 miles deep on Wolfram Alpha then it can be reasonably said that I know the depth of the Pacific Ocean. But if you think about it, all I've done is read some words on a screen. Still, I have knowledge. But if I actually go to the deepest part of the ocean myself and personally measure the depth - even if I experience the depth by descending all the way to the bottom - then I know the depth of the Pacific Ocean in a "deeper" and "fuller" way.

So though there are many ways to justify claims to knowledge, some justifications produce deeper knowledge and other justifications produce more superficial knowledge of the same thing.

Why sure. That´s why your question "What is proper knowledge?" is an oversimplified question - it doesn´t even allow for the answer you give yourself.

Since I can´t go to the moon myself and measure the distance (and no one can), we have to settle with less "deep" and "full" justifications of knowledge.

 

[sarxweh]

Logical processes like deduction and induction. Personal experience. Revelation. Appeals to authority. Coherency. Self-evident truths. Pragmatism. These can all be justifications.

Just trying to "know" the list of possibilities

I couldn't imagine desire being an acceptable justification. It at least won't be persuasive to others.

For instance, "I believe p because I want to believe p" might be good enough for you, but it won't go far with others.

But inwardly (individually) isn't it desire that leads to a choice from your list (for whatever suits the instance best)?

Don't we sometimes believe p because we feel there is nothing else/better to desire?

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems to me that most often our justifications for our beliefs fall into this category - an appeal to authority. For instance, I believe that the moon is 237,704 miles away from the earth. I would say that this belief constitutes knowledge. We know this to be true. What's my justification? Well, I looked it up on Wolfram Alpha. So I appeal to authority. I haven't personally measured the distance, but I trust those who claim to have done the proper calculations.

What gives Wolfram Alpha it's authority?

What we usually give the most authority is repeated empirical measurements accompanied by the methods used to make the measurement. If you referenced several papers that used multiple different methods for measuring the distance to the moon, and they all agreed within error, then you would have a very strong authority.

To distill this down even further, what we look for is independence between the claim and the claimant, and some way to verify the claim. For example, there is simply no sane reason why several teams of scientists would collude to publish a false distance to the moon that could be checked by someone with a powerful laser and a sensitive CCD camera. The claim and the claimant are independent since there is no advantage to faking the results, and much to risk from faking the results.

 

[Tree of Life]

What gives Wolfram Alpha it's authority?

What we usually give the most authority is repeated empirical measurements accompanied by the methods used to make the measurement. If you referenced several papers that used multiple different methods for measuring the distance to the moon, and they all agreed within error, then you would have a very strong authority.

To distill this down even further, what we look for is independence between the claim and the claimant, and some way to verify the claim. For example, there is simply no sane reason why several teams of scientists would collude to publish a false distance to the moon that could be checked by someone with a powerful laser and a sensitive CCD camera. The claim and the claimant are independent since there is no advantage to faking the results, and much to risk from faking the results.

I'm not skeptical of these authorities. I think that they do legitimately have knowledge of their subjects. But does that mean that we have knowledge just because we trust their word?

 

[variant]

I'm not skeptical of these authorities. I think that they do legitimately have knowledge of their subjects. But does that mean that we have knowledge just because we trust their word?

Knowledge means you can make accurate verifiable predictions.

 

[Tree of Life]

Knowledge means you can make accurate verifiable predictions.

No it doesn't. I know that I was born in 1987 but that doesn't allow me to predict anything.

 

[quatona]

I know that I was born in 1987

Out of interest, and because it seems to fit nicely with your OP:
How do you justify this knowledge?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not skeptical of these authorities. I think that they do legitimately have knowledge of their subjects. But does that mean that we have knowledge just because we trust their word?

We have knowledge because we can verify their word.