Is an appeal to authority a proper justification of knowledge?

[Tree of Life]

Knowledge is generally understood to be justified, true, belief. We all hold all sorts of beliefs in our heads. Some constitute as knowledge and others do not. A belief constitutes knowledge if the belief is true and if we believe it for the right reason. So we need all three things for knowledge - belief, truth, and justification. Everything else I'm about to say depends on this, so if you take issue with the above then deal with it before moving on.

For instance, let's say that I believe that the population of Paris is 2.2 million (which it is). So my belief is true. But let's say that I believe this because of a dream that I had last night. A talking unicorn appeared to me and told me that this was so. Even though my belief is true, it does not constitute knowledge because I don't believe it for a good reason.

So knowledge is justified, true, belief.

We good with that?

Moving on...

There are all sorts of justifications for beliefs. We may believe something because of first hand experience. We may believe because of logical necessity. We could talk about many types of justification. Here's my question for this thread: is appeal to authority a valid justification for knowledge?

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.

Doesn't this describe the vast majority of what we consider to be knowledge? Is an appeal to authority like this a proper justification? In other words, just because I read this information on Wolfram Alpha, do I really know that the moon is 237,704 miles away from the earth?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
Doesn't this describe the vast majority of what we consider to be knowledge? Is an appeal to authority like this a proper justification? ...

Nope.

You can go to the library, and find out how to do the calculation yourself.

And if you don't feel like it, there are thousands and thousands of scientists who are double checking everything for you.

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.

Instead pray to a god to heal, pray to a god to communicate your message, to transport you to work, or across the oceans.

 

[terryjohn]

An authority is only one because they evidence? Even if they have it, is there any guarantee that they got it right? Is only physical evidence acceptable?
I read some asking for evidence for faith as if God has in some way left irrefutable and ultimately condemning evidence for faith. I an not sure but is it logical to demand evidence for the existence of God. Scripture says that the fool says in their heart that there is not God. It is foolishness because logic would have to honestly say, it doesn't know.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

An authority is only one because they evidence? Even if they have it, is there any guarantee that they got it right? Is only physical evidence acceptable?

Yes, only a claim backed by evidence is acceptable.

I read some asking for evidence for faith as if God has in some way left irrefutable and ultimately condemning evidence for faith. I an not sure but is it logical to demand evidence for the existence of God. Scripture says that the fool says in their heart that there is not God. It is foolishness because logic would have to honestly say, it doesn't know.

Is it logical to demand evidence of the Loch Ness Monster before we believe in it?

Is it logical to demand evidence of Santa Claus before we believe in him?

Is it logical to demand evidence of Zeus before we believe in him?

How about the Loch Ness Monster of Santa Claus?

 

[Gottservant]

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).

First hand knowledge is only necessary if the knowledge you have conflicts with the authority (but in the case of God, God only ever wants what is good for you anyway, so there is no reason to complain).

 

[madaz]

Nope.

You can go to the library, and find out how to do the calculation yourself.

And if you don't feel like it, there are thousands and thousands of scientists who are double checking everything for you.

Precisely!

Say for example you have been taught that planet earth rotates.

(Anti-clockwise from a "birds eye view of the North pole).

Do you have to just take their word for it?

How could you verify this, what predictions could you make?

Just think about that...

You could predict that the sun will appear to rise in the East and set in the West, you could predict that shadows will move 15 degrees every hour (eg 360 deg divided by 24 hours) and stars will appear to move West 15 degrees every hour (As viewed from near the equator) you could predict that Satellites travelling at 8000 mps at an altitude of 160km will orbit the planet every 90 mins, you could predict that a plane departing Auckland NZ at 7.00am travelling at aprox 500 knts will arrive into Sydney at 7.00am AEST during DST, you could predict aprox 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of dark repeated over and over.(As viewed from near the equator) You could predict the stars as viewed from the North celestial pole will appear to rotate clockwise and anti clockwise from the South celestial poles. You could predict that any abitrary choice of time within the 24 hour clock is being presently experienced by some part of the planet. You could predict if you sailed a yacht around the world in one particular direction that you would lose a day. From these predictions you could also predict that the planet must be a sphere.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Knowledge is generally understood to be justified, true, belief. We all hold all sorts of beliefs in our heads. Some constitute as knowledge and others do not. A belief constitutes knowledge if the belief is true and if we believe it for the right reason. So we need all three things for knowledge - belief, truth, and justification. Everything else I'm about to say depends on this, so if you take issue with the above then deal with it before moving on.

For instance, let's say that I believe that the population of Paris is 2.2 million (which it is). So my belief is true. But let's say that I believe this because of a dream that I had last night. A talking unicorn appeared to me and told me that this was so. Even though my belief is true, it does not constitute knowledge because I don't believe it for a good reason.

So knowledge is justified, true, belief.

We good with that?

Moving on...

There are all sorts of justifications for beliefs. We may believe something because of first hand experience. We may believe because of logical necessity. We could talk about many types of justification. Here's my question for this thread: is appeal to authority a valid justification for knowledge?

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.

Doesn't this describe the vast majority of what we consider to be knowledge? Is an appeal to authority like this a proper justification? In other words, just because I read this information on Wolfram Alpha, do I really know that the moon is 237,704 miles away from the earth?

In some instances I'd say it's perfectly fine to appeal to authority for knowledge. Other times...not so much. I had to think for awhile before I could come up with a good rule-of-thumb for when you should and when you shouldn't...and this is the best I could come up with....

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.

 

[Radagast]

Doesn't this describe the vast majority of what we consider to be knowledge?

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?

 

[Gottservant]

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?

Knowledge does not make you trustworthy.

That's one of the differences between men and God.

 

[madaz]

Knowledge does not make you trustworthy.

That's one of the differences between men and God.

Yep! I wouldn't trust god either.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Appeal to qualified authority increases ones chances of being right.

 

[Radagast]

Knowledge does not make you trustworthy.

Well, that's a complete non sequitur.

If there is evidence that people are trustworthy, we can believe what they say.

As a scientist, I trust (at least provisionally) results in peer-reviewed journals that have been replicated.

As a Christian, I trust the men who wrote the gospels.

As a human being, I trust those of my friends that experience has shown to be reliable.

 

[Gottservant]

You are conflating make with "enable" in order to make an argument that shouldn't exist.

God is not a respecter of persons.

 

[Radagast]

Huh?

 

[Gottservant]

So clever, but stumped by simple observation of words?

Knowledge does not make you trustworthy.

What you are saying is:

No, knowledge enables me to be trustworthy therefore I am made trustworthy.

It doesn't follow.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Knowledge is generally understood to be justified, true, belief. We all hold all sorts of beliefs in our heads. Some constitute as knowledge and others do not. A belief constitutes knowledge if the belief is true and if we believe it for the right reason. So we need all three things for knowledge - belief, truth, and justification. Everything else I'm about to say depends on this, so if you take issue with the above then deal with it before moving on.

For instance, let's say that I believe that the population of Paris is 2.2 million (which it is). So my belief is true. But let's say that I believe this because of a dream that I had last night. A talking unicorn appeared to me and told me that this was so. Even though my belief is true, it does not constitute knowledge because I don't believe it for a good reason.

So knowledge is justified, true, belief.

We good with that?

Moving on...

There are all sorts of justifications for beliefs. We may believe something because of first hand experience. We may believe because of logical necessity. We could talk about many types of justification. Here's my question for this thread: is appeal to authority a valid justification for knowledge?

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.

Doesn't this describe the vast majority of what we consider to be knowledge? Is an appeal to authority like this a proper justification? In other words, just because I read this information on Wolfram Alpha, do I really know that the moon is 237,704 miles away from the earth?

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.

 

[Hetta]

There are four means by which we learn about the world: intuition, deduction, authority and observation.

Relying on "authority" usually means relying on a knowledge person or group as a means of knowing about the world. Could be a teacher or a pastor.

Intuition: relying on common sense.

Deduction: using logical reason/facts.

Observation: pretty obvious - relying on what one sees and learns.

 

[variant]

An appeal to an authority is fine if the authority is justified.

Authority becomes justified just like any other knowledge by showing their work, evidence, reasoning and making predictions that can be checked reliably come true, so JUST an appeal to "authority" isn't enough. The appeal must be to a justified authority giving you true beliefs.

 

[Hetta]

An appeal to an authority is fine if the authority is justified.

Authority becomes justified just like any other knowledge by showing their work, evidence, reasoning and making predictions that can be checked reliably come true, so JUST an appeal to "authority" isn't enough. The appeal must be to a justified authority giving you true beliefs.

Yes.

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