Is an appeal to authority a proper justification of knowledge?

[Loudmouth]

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

Sure it does. It allows me to predict that you will have certain teeth, and not others (adult v. baby teeth). It allows me to predict how many layers of enamal those teeth will have. It allows me to make many predicts as to your physiology. It also allows me to predict what certain records will have, such as a birth certificate or passport. I should be able to find evidence independent of your claim that verifies it.

 

[variant]

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

Sure it does, your age is a key factor in age related disease, your projected retirement age for financial predictions ect ect.

If you want to pick knowledge that is non predictive you should at least come up with a more irrelevant idea.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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?

(Emphasis mine)

Are you questioning whether knowledge is transferable?

Because that's slightly different than your OP. And with regards to that question: of course it is. That's the whole basis of schooling. A teacher, in an ideal sense, is one who transfers knowledge. Transfer of knowledge is one of the greatest inventions of the human race.

With regards to the bolded bit, if you are trusting someone "just because", then you are appealing to authority. But if you investigate and have some sort of reasoning as to why they are trustworthy, then that is a different situation.

 

[sarxweh]

Is the question how do you know? (Such as an appeal to authority, "my teacher told me" or an appeal to experience, "I touched it myself")

But even if these are both/neither legitimate, how can you know that?

Can you know that you know you know? And then simultaneously know you may not know since doubt becomes necessary for knowledge to be called true?

I find the question to be dependent on both the motive and the authority involved.

But when my mom says "I don't think god sends babies to hell" I don't ask her why she thinks so. I already know why she says it.

She is appealing to her own authority - she wants it to be true and that's good enough for the point she makes (which is not as narrow and unprovable as the nature of infant life in eternity). Her point in the statement is tied to the other things she believes, and where things like baby death get hazy, she appeals to the authority of her views of biblical insight into the person of God.

So her appeal is great and fine for babies. But only because it isn't the real issue she's addressing.

My question for you tree of life, is what do you think? How do you answer this question? I appeal to your authority.

 

[Tree of Life]

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

I suppose I have a few justifications.

One is memory. According to my memories 1987 makes sense.
Another is personal testimony. My parents tell me that this is so and I have no reason to doubt them. I suppose that's also an appeal to authority.
Another is a plain appeal to authority. The state tells me that this is so.
Another is empirical data. I've seen the video of my birth (or my alleged birth).

There could be more, but those are my justifications off hand.

 

[Tree of Life]

My question for you tree of life, is what do you think? How do you answer this question? I appeal to your authority.

I say yes. Appeals to authority are totally legitimate. Knowledge is a communal quest shared by the whole human race. What we know we know together. But I can get to know something deeper by having a deeper justification. Appeals to authority produce knowledge, but a more shallow knowledge then, say, empirical data or divine revelation.

 

[sarxweh]

I say yes. Appeals to authority are totally legitimate. Knowledge is a communal quest shared by the whole human race. What we know we know together. But I can get to know something deeper by having a deeper justification. Appeals to authority produce knowledge, but a more shallow knowledge then, say, empirical data or divine revelation.

You are very great. Come to Santo poco. put on show stop. The in famous el guapo

 

[quatona]

I suppose I have a few justifications.

One is memory. According to my memories 1987 makes sense.

You memorize your birth?

Another is personal testimony. My parents tell me that this is so and I have no reason to doubt them. I suppose that's also an appeal to authority.
Another is a plain appeal to authority. The state tells me that this is so.

Another is empirical data. I've seen the video of my birth (or my alleged birth).

And you know that the video was made in 1987 exactly how? I´m sure this involves more "appeals to authority", by your use of the term.

 

[Tree of Life]

You memorize your birth?

No. But I have no memories that predate 1987. So according to my memory 1987 makes ok sense.

And you know that the video was made in 1987 exactly how? I´m sure this involves more "appeals to authority", by your use of the term.

I suppose I don't really know. Perhaps my belief isn't justified. But that seems a bit silly doesn't it?

 

[quatona]

No. But I have no memories that predate 1987. So according to my memory 1987 makes ok sense.



I suppose I don't really know. Perhaps my belief isn't justified. But that seems a bit silly doesn't it?

Ah, the OP made it sound like this was about justification of "knowledge", not about "ok sense to me" or "belief".

 

[Tree of Life]

Ah, the OP made it sound like this was about justification of "knowledge", not about "ok sense to me" or "belief".

Knowledge is a belief that makes ok sense. In order for it to make sense it needs to have a proper justification.

 

[quatona]

Knowledge is a belief that makes ok sense. In order for it to make sense it needs to have a proper justification.

Uhm, ok. I thought that with your OP you were asking what was required for a justification to be "proper" (not merely to shift words around without making any progress at all).
I´m out.

 

[sarxweh]

Uhm, ok. I thought that with your OP you were asking what was required for a justification to be "proper" (not merely to shift words around without making any progress at all).
I´m out.

How do you define proper?

 

[quatona]

How do you define proper?

You are asking the wrong person.
That was my question to ToL - he introduced the term.
I´d welcome you to ask him, just like I did.

 

[Tree of Life]

You are asking the wrong person.
That was my question to ToL - he introduced the term.
I´d welcome you to ask him, just like I did.

A proper justification is a valid or acceptable justification. It's a justification that truly justifies - a reason for belief. If a belief is justified that means that there's a moral obligation to accept its truth. To deny it would be ethically wrong. It would likewise be ethically wrong to hold beliefs that are totally unjustified.

I've already listed different types of justifications.

 

[Loudmouth]

A proper justification is a valid or acceptable justification. It's a justification that truly justifies - a reason for belief. If a belief is justified that means that there's a moral obligation to accept its truth. To deny it would be ethically wrong. It would likewise be ethically wrong to hold beliefs that are totally unjustified.

I've already listed different types of justifications.

How do you determine if something is properly justified?

 

[Tree of Life]

How do you determine if something is properly justified?

We make an agreement about what constitutes a valid justification. One of the big questions of epistemology is about what constitutes a valid justification. If you're able to persuade others of the validity of your justifications for believing p then you will have gone a long way in persuading others to believe p.

So there are different camps out there that accept different sorts of justifications. The question is: how do you determine what's epistemically justified?

 

[Tree of Life]

For me personally I think that there are three types of justification that any belief that I hold needs to have:

1. Does it accord with the facts?
2. Does it accord with the norms?
3. Is it epistemically satisfying?

If "yes" to all three then the belief is justified.

 

[Loudmouth]

We make an agreement about what constitutes a valid justification.

What do YOU think is a valid justification? What would YOU look for in this agreement?

So there are different camps out there that accept different sorts of justifications. The question is: how do you determine what's epistemically justified?

That is the question I have asked you several times now.

 

[Loudmouth]

For me personally I think that there are three types of justification that any belief that I hold needs to have:

1. Does it accord with the facts?

What makes something a fact?

2. Does it accord with the norms?

What if facts contradict norms?

3. Is it epistemically satisfying?

Huh?