Is an appeal to authority a proper justification of knowledge?

[Tree of Life]

Yes, I know when the day was. Fortunately, we have a massive amount of written and testimonial evidence to attest to it. There is virtually no faith required for something that has that much evidence. It's also not an extraordinary claim so it doesn't require there to be such a massive amount of evidence.

How do you know when the day was?

I assume you'll point me to some historic authority. Unless, of course, you were there?

And we're not talking about faith, we're talking about knowledge. Have you read much of this thread?

 

[Wololo]

How do you know when the day was?

I assume you'll point me to some historic authority. Unless, of course, you were there?

And we're not talking about faith, we're talking about knowledge. Have you read much of this thread?

No I don't believe authorities just because they are authorities. I will likely trust them, but the difference is that authorities tend to have evidence when they say that something has happened. They have a massive amount of written evidence, even if they weren't there at the time. There are people that were there that are still living that can tell you that story of D-Day. You'll never catch me arguing from authority.

 

[Tree of Life]

No I don't believe authorities just because they are authorities. I will likely trust them, but the difference is that authorities tend to have evidence when they say that something has happened. They have a massive amount of written evidence, even if they weren't there at the time. There are people that were there that are still living that can tell you that story of D-Day. You'll never catch me arguing from authority.

This isn't about argument. This is about justification. If I read on Wolfram Alpha that the moon is X amount of miles away from the earth, do I then know that the moon is X amount of miles away from the earth?

 

[Wololo]

This isn't about argument. This is about justification. If I read on Wolfram Alpha that the moon is X amount of miles away from the earth, do I then know that the moon is X amount of miles away from the earth?

No, but the people that say it's X number of miles away have the ability to measure that distance with special equipment. If I really wanted, I could go to a lab where that's possible and see for myself that the claim is true. When you make claims about something that can be empirically verified, the best way to go about it is a scientific test. If someone tells me something about the distance the moon is away from the Earth, if I want to know whether or not it's true, I evaluate it.

The person that made the claim is a scientist who did a test and wrote about the results and their test. Those results can be tested again and the same result will be produced. That's what's wonderful for the scientific method. It is hands down the best way of proving something empirical.

That isn't to say that everything is empirically verifiable, but for things that ARE, science is by far the best way to test it. In the case of experts and scientists, the very fact that it has been verified more than once and can be tested again is enough for me to believe it. That's conclusive evidence.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, but the people that say it's X number of miles away have the ability to measure that distance with special equipment. If I really wanted, I could go to a lab where that's possible and see for myself that the claim is true. When you make claims about something that can be empirically verified, the best way to go about it is a scientific test. If someone tells me something about the distance the moon is away from the Earth, if I want to know whether or not it's true, I evaluate it.

The person that made the claim is a scientist who did a test and wrote about the results and their test. Those results can be tested again and the same result will be produced. That's what's wonderful for the scientific method. It is hands down the best way of proving something empirical.

That isn't to say that everything is empirically verifiable, but for things that ARE, science is by far the best way to test it. In the case of experts and scientists, the very fact that it has been verified more than once and can be tested again is enough for me to believe it. That's conclusive evidence.

Interesting. So the things that we learn from books cannot be called knowledge until we've experienced them (or the evidence for them) for ourselves?

Personally I disagree. I think that we can genuinely share knowledge with one another and gain knowledge from authorities.

Since you have a Christian icon I assume that you believe in the resurrection. Do you have a reason for believing it?

 

[Wololo]

Interesting. So the things that we learn from books cannot be called knowledge until we've experienced them (or the evidence for them) for ourselves?

Personally I disagree. I think that we can genuinely share knowledge with one another and gain knowledge from authorities.

Since you have a Christian icon I assume that you believe in the resurrection. Do you have a reason for believing it?

No. If we make empirical claims, we need some form of evidence for them. The thing about empirical claims is that they can and should be tested.

Don't mistake my points for being anti-authority! :o I think we should trust authorities, I would just caution you from saying they are right just because they are authorities. Titular authority itself is meaningless. The reason they are trustworthy people is because they have demonstrated their competence and intellect to us. If you are skeptical, all you need to do is ask them for evidence and they will either provide a logical explanation or provide you with the evidence you seek.

I believe in the resurrection even though it cannot be proven conclusively (because there isn't enough evidence in existence to prove it anymore). I believe the testimony of the early believers that went to horrible deaths for it. None are recorded to have recanted, even under duress and the threat of a horrible death. People don't go to their graves for things they know are lies. It's just that the evidence we have is not enough to prove the claim that Jesus was resurrected. All it does is make it plausible.

 

[quatona]

I suppose I am retreating to a hypothetical imperative. Obey God and live. If you want to live you ought to obey God. If someone does not want to enjoy a long and flourishing life then I suppose I can't think of a good reason for why they should obey God.

I understand how this - if assuming the existence of a God - can (or even must) be seen as the most important "oughts" .
However, the premise of your statement was: "In the absence of a God...". All this is irrelevant when talking about "oughts" in the absence of a God. If there are certain ways to lead your life, to conduct, to approach things that are helping you "enjoying a long and flourishing life" (and those that don´t) they are there no matter whether a God exists or not. They depend on how the world works - no matter how this world came into being.

So I guess the question is: "which hypothetical imperative is right?"

Maybe you have lost track of what we are discussing. We are discussing your assertion that in the absence of a God there can´t be morality nor oughts.
So the question "Which hypothetical imperative is right?" (with one of them being an imperative based on the premise that a God exists) is not the question here.

Mine is that friendship with God is the only way to live an eternal, flourishing life. So if you want this then you should be reconciled to God.

I see how this can be seen to trump every other imperative - under the premise that a God exists. But we are talking about your statement "in the absence of a God". So this is pretty much irrelevant. In the absence of a God there are still ways that help a flourishing life and ways that don´t.

What's your hypothetical imperative? Or would you even use a hypothetical imperative?

I think the hypothetical imperative "lead and enjoy a long and flourishing life" will do, for purposes of this discussion (personally, I would word it differently, but that isn´t relevant for showing how such imperatives result in moral "oughts", no matter whether a God exists or not).

 

[ThinkForYourself]

My approach to morality is to demonstrate the positive effects that Christian morality has had on our society, using historical examples. Where we derive our beliefs from is something different, but we can definitely look at the effects of properly practiced Christianity. ...

I would like to see that (the positive effects of Christian morality), if you wouldn't mind.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Interesting. So the things that we learn from books cannot be called knowledge until we've experienced them (or the evidence for them) for ourselves?

Science has proven itself to be the best methodology we have to find out about the natural world. So an appeal to Science is fine. It doesn't get any better.

I think that we can genuinely share knowledge with one another and gain knowledge from authorities.

I think that depends. I don't care who the authority is, they have to have evidence to back up their assertions. No evidence, no authority.

 

[Wololo]

I think it would be off-topic to discuss historical morality (such as those of the ancients and such in this thread, so if I can find a more suitable forum, I'll post something there and link it my signature.

ThinkForYourself brings something up that I think is really important in more ways than one. Science is a philosophy, just like the philosophies that different religions are based on. That isn't to say they are incompatible, but more that they can work together. All of us can see that science is powerful. It has advanced technology and improved our understanding of the world immensely. What's great about science is that its claims are always falsifiable and its results are always repeatable so that we can be certain that they are true.

I wouldn't really call it an appeal to science. It's more that we're applying a method to discover the truth about the natural world. Science does a phenomenal job of this, but where we encounter problems is in applying science to everything. There are things that are not falsifiable that crop up. There are things that cannot be tested empirically that we consider. This is where science does not help us and we have to move on from it.

That doesn't mean evidence is no longer required. What we have decided to move on from is the need for empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is necessary at the core of everything (because we learn with our senses). That means that philosophy needs to be based on what we experience empirically. This prevents us from making things up and fooling ourselves. If I make up something silly like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am actually making things up because there is no empirical evidence or philosophy that attaches to reality. Every religion on the planet is based on principles that were discovered empirically.

Let me give you an example of this. Logic. Logic is something that by definition is correct. It's tautological. It's an axiom that we all agree on. A logical argument is always true so long as it does not presuppose anything relevant. Everything we do is based on some form of logic. That doesn't mean we always behave logically, but logic is inescapable. That said, logic was initially observed. We learned about logic through our experiences and then extended it to apply to other things. Thus philosophy came into existence.

Over time we have developed logical rules. One of those expresses that one cannot argue from authority. A title is meaningless objectively. It doesn't have any bearing on the truth.

If you want argue that X is true because God said it (as an authority), you are making a fallacious argument. You are assuming that God's position of authority makes him correct. It's like me being the president and telling everyone that the sky is purple. I can argue from authority and say that because I am president, I'm right. If you want to argue X is true (the same X as above), you should argue that X is true because God is its creator. That is valid logic (aside from the assumption that God exists). You are arguing that the creator of said things knows about it. For the sake of simplicity, we'll call that proper logic.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

An appeal to authority is not an argument. It's a justification for knowledge. If you make this claim, then you'd have to claim agnosticism on a great many things. Almost all of your scientific knowledge you "know" because you've read in books. Also any historical knowledge that you think you have. All of this knowledge is justified by an appeal to an authority.

I don't consider appealing to science to be appealing to authority. It has proven itself reliable, and gives us the best available information on (almost?) any natural subject.

I do consider appealing to a scientist's opinion an appeal to authority.

 

[Loudmouth]

In accusing me of committing this fallacy are you conceding that you've committed it?

I am only showing that your own argument fits your description of an Is/Ought fallacy.

Even so, I don't think that this fallacy is committed in the case of a hypothetical imperative. My argument would go something like this:

1. Obeying God leads to life and flourishing
2. People who want to live and flourish ought to obey God
3. Therefore if we want to live and flourish we ought to obey God

That would be begging the question. Your first premise and conclusion are identical.

 

[Tree of Life]

I am only showing that your own argument fits your description of an Is/Ought fallacy.

The Is/Ought fallacy is when you try to get an "ought" out of a bunch of "is" statements. The argument that I put forth has an "ought" statement among its premises so it does not commit the fallacy.

That would be begging the question. Your first premise and conclusion are identical.

They're not identical. The premise is an "is" statement. The conclusion is an "ought" statement. Note that the second premise is an "ought", so the Is/Ought fallacy is not committed.

 

[Tree of Life]

I don't consider appealing to science to be appealing to authority. It has proven itself reliable, and gives us the best available information on (almost?) any natural subject.

I do consider appealing to a scientist's opinion an appeal to authority.

What do you mean when you say "appeal to science"? Do you mean appealing to a scientist's findings? Do you mean appealing to a particular person who represents science? Do you mean appealing to the scientific method?

 

[Loudmouth]

The Is/Ought fallacy is when you try to get an "ought" out of a bunch of "is" statements.

God is the creator.

God is powerful.

Therefore, we ought to do what he says.

That's your argument, is it not?

They're not identical. The premise is an "is" statement. The conclusion is an "ought" statement. Note that the second premise is an "ought", so the Is/Ought fallacy is not committed.

They are identical, and you once again admit to drawing an ought from an is.

 

[Tree of Life]

God is the creator.

God is powerful.

Therefore, we ought to do what he says.

That's your argument, is it not?



They are identical, and you once again admit to drawing an ought from an is.

Look again. I'm drawing an "ought" from an "ought". In order for there to be an "ought" in the conclusion there must be an "ought" in the premises or the argument is invalid. Here's my argument once more:

1. God, being the author of life, perfectly knows how life works best.
2. If anyone wants to enjoy long life and prosperity they ought to obey God.
3. Therefore if we want to enjoy long life and prosperity we ought to obey God.

Premise 2 contains an "ought" so there can validly be an "ought" in the conclusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. God, being the author of life, perfectly knows how life works best.

Is.

2. If anyone wants to enjoy long life and prosperity they ought to obey God.

And then the ought.

 

[Tree of Life]

And then the ought.

Yes. Premise 2 contains an ought statement. But premise 2 is a premise. It does not follow from premise 1. My conclusion, however, follows from premises 1 and 2.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes. Premise 2 contains an ought statement. But premise 2 is a premise.

It is a conclusion derived from premise 1.

 

[Tree of Life]

It is a conclusion derived from premise 1.

Maybe so. If that's the case then my argument is invalid as well. But in that case it only goes to show the difference between moral knowledge and rational knowledge. We can't arrive at moral conclusions using rationality alone. Or "rationality and emphathy" alone. In order to arrive at moral conclusions we have to already have moral assumptions.