Points to Ponder:
Trials and tribulations offer us a chance to make reparation for our past faults and sins. On such occasions the Lord comes to us like a physician to heal the wounds left by our sins. Tribulation is the divine medicine. [St. Augustine of Hippo]
Thursday, July 23, 2020
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept. Revisited:
(With Apologies to the Late Aldous Huxley)
[Prefatory Note: This is an abridged version of a thread I first published on August 27, 2004 on critical thinking skills after being appalled at how poorly I had seen people utilize reason and logic over the span of not a few years at that time. The version below was abridged from the original piece and published to Facebook on January 27, 2009. However, since we are closing in on another election now, it seems appropriate to republish the note anew to this site as an aid to those who are endeavouring to deal with various and sundry "arguments" pro-offered by different people as a guide to help them in their discernment of whether said arguments are properly offered or not. -SM]
One of the most frequently means of arguing a point is resorting to an erroneous usage of what is called argument from authority. Now I should note in advance that to some extent, everyone relies on those whom are recognized to various degrees as "authorities" outside of themselves to develop and/or maintain a position in an argument. (As no one can possibly know everything there is to know about any subject in question, let alone the entire spectrum of subject matter.) Nonetheless, there are proper and improper ways of doing this -and the post you are reading will endeavour to explain the proper means versus the improper means of appealing to authority.
What is about to be covered here is hardly something that I am discussing for the first time. However, there is a perceived need to round out and develop a complementary thread to those where this issue was previously dealt with -a "counter-thread" if you will focusing more on positive exposition and less on negative pronouncements. For though I have dealt with this subject before, the genesis of this kind of argumentation was barely touched on in those links.{1} And in not dealing with the foundational presuppositions angle -mainly because I was livid when those threads were written for reasons I am not about to go into at this time- provided to some extent a kind of cover for those guilty of this fallacy to continue to perpetuate it.
With the reception of some emails espousing variations of this problem, essentially we reached critical mass. The previously gruff treatments of this subject was in large part because I cannot stand sophistic time wasters who prefer a character assassination to legitimate discussion of issues.{2} However, it is not only these sorts of individuals who engage in fallacious forms of argument from authority. No my friends, even people interested in genuine dialogue on issues often appropriate this method fallaciously. The question that needs to be answered is essentially one of how people can legitimately argue from authority -should they want to do this. In that regard, it is done primarily by noting first of all how one cannot legitimately do so -and from there avoiding the snares of improper argumentation methodology.{3} To assist in achieving this is the purpose of the thread you are reading.
To start with, arguments that base themselves on any presumed "credentials" of the person so arguing are intrinsically fallacious. I have dealt with this subject before in a number of ways -including using a methodology of argumentation which can be accurately referred to as reducionum ad absurdum. The reason why this kind of argument is logically specious should be obvious on its face. However, because many of those who are agenda-minded can tend to ignore what is (or should be) obvious, a few notes on the matter are worth sketching out for the benefit of those of good will.
To start with, it should be obvious that no opinion is either intrinsically valid or invalid on the basis of the espousing party's particular learning degrees. For one thing, oftentimes people posit degrees after their names of a generalized nature -such as a PhD. This can be deceiving to the reader because they would naturally presume that the author's degree so noted applies to the subject matter in which they are writing about. However, quite often this is not the case. And that of course brings us to the first principle that is essential to take into account when considering the accreditation of said writers -should they posit any of course.
--A recognized authority in one area is not necessarily worth listening to in another area.
It would involve a degree of investigation on the part of the inquirer to determine if such a person is actually to be listened to in the area in which they are speaking. Or should I say, it would be if their primary concern about considering the merits of an argument is based on letters after a name. Those who are familiar with the foundational tools of reason and logic are able to equitably weigh someone's arguments on those standards and receive a kind of "acid test reading" of the relative stability of the arguments advanced.{4} If the arguments pass muster there, then they are worth considering further whereas if they fail there, then there is no reason to consider them any further.{5}
--On topics which are of a controverted nature (or where there are disagreements among recognized experts), it is fallacious to accept the opinion of an authority.
Opinions are usually based on some form of argumentation; however not all forms of argumentation are equal. This is another area that could call for careful discernment -though even "experts" can be found to not infrequently argue in facile ways to support a particular opinion they may have on an issue. While it is true that it is not necessarily fallacious to accept the arguments of an authority which support a particular opinion; at the same time the arguments themselves had better have some solid foundation to them beyond the mere "say so" of the "expert" so cited. It should be obvious (though often it is not unfortunately) that if the authority being cited has grounded their opinion on fallacious argumentation or questionable evidences, then one should not be predisposed to accept their opinion on the matter in the natural sphere of things.{6}
--In areas where there is disagreement among recognized experts, individuals then have to turn to various sources. However, whatever the sources turned to, the purpose cannot be for conclusions or opinions of said authority.
In the above scenario, what must be sought out from the sources turned to is evidences for a particular opinion along with reasons and arguments all working in symbiotic fashion to sustain a particular opinion. Merely accepting conclusions or opinions in and of themselves is a fallacious appeal to authority.
--Appeals to any presumable "authoritative" source should take into account (to the extent this is possible) the track record of accuracy of the source being utilized.
As this is a principle that can itself be easily abused -as one person's conception of error is not necessarily the same as anothers- the general rules of charity should apply here. For those unaware of what I refer to, the principle to be considered basically is this one:
--Do not presume to put an unfavourable interpretation upon the words or actions of another because the same words or actions can be looked upon in different circumstances or contexts.
When there is an obvious misuse of a source in an argument, that is one thing. However, an argument that is based on one particular frame of reference (or context) may be true within that frame of reference but false within another frame of reference. To determine if this is the case or not would of course require some work to be done on the part of the inquirer.
To summarize the above points, these principles if followed will not guarantee that one will be successful in their quest to ascertain the truth from the varying threads of opinion or argumentation out there. However, along with the additional tools of logic and reason,{7} they will mitigate significantly the problem of falling into fallacious forms of argumentation as per the appealing to any presumed "authority." (Within the context of attempting to set forth or sustain a particular position within the framework of a dialogue or debate on issues.)
For it is neither necessarily fallacious nor improper to appeal to an authority in dialogue or debate (or other forms of discussion). Nor is it necessarily inappropriate for those who have certain specializations in a field to denote this with the credentials they have gathered.{8} However, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of doing this. Appeals to supposed "credentials" in order to buttress one's arguments (and try to at the same time silence an opposing view) is the tactics of a poltroon -no matter whom the party is who engages in these tactics.
Now obviously those with related credentials should be accorded a measure of respect. However, such individuals should never presume that they can protect themselves from criticism on this factor alone -particularly if their arguments are specious ones. Also, in the citing of authorities or sources to support one's point of view, one should be careful in how they go about interacting with the work of presumed "experts" to support a particular position being advanced and maintained by argument.{9}
In conclusion, I hope this brief post is of assistance to many in separating the wheat from the chaff and avoiding the all-too-common fallacious forms of argument from authority in your future arguments and elucidations.
Notes:
{1} I originally covered this in a very short thread back in 2003 titled "Sophistic Arguments Learned in Ten Minutes" or something along those lines. As the intended message that sarcastic approach took was not adequately realized by those who were targeted by it at the time; I am hesitant to recreate it here.
{2} In a footnote of the original text I mentioned those who are psychotic enough in their Orwellian Doublespeak methodology to accuse me (falsely) of slander after they have obviously (to anyone who is not blind) libeled me numerous times. (As a way of trying to compensate for their lacking of the basic mental equipment to separate actual slander or libel from a legitimate critique -even sharply- of them and their outlooks.)
{3} Logically if you avoid what is incorrect in your approach to issues, you end up by default utilizing a legitimate method of inquiry. This is the foundation behind the method that seeks what is true only after identifying first of all what is false to thereby narrow the number of potential paths of inquiry.
{4} I have in my life taken on and confuted "experts" in several fields. In the process, I have come to believe an old maxim of one of my intellectual mentors Arthur Jones that "ninety-five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash." And that includes by the way what is published by those who are called "experts." If they write in an area that they have extensive knowledge in, their views are of course to be accorded proper respect. However, if the arguments they utilize are shoddy, then no amount of appeal to their "expert status" can fix that deficiency. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 27, 2004)]
{5} Mike Mentzer was a large influence in refining my intellectual approach. Mike used to often dissuade people from accepting what he had to say on subjects of his field of expertise simply on the basis of him possessing one of the hallmark "credentials" in the particular field he was involved in. Indeed, rather than base any of his arguments on this factor, Mike would instead often make statements akin to the following:
"I've always reasoned that if the material I presented was valid in and of itself, was offered in a logical manner, and designed to appeal to one's reason and common sense, then the likelihood of it being accepted for its intrinsic worth was greater."
That is how I have throughout my adult life approached discussing any subject matter as a rule. It should go without saying that I therefore recommend the same approach to anyone who wants to make a contribution of value to the arena of ideas: focus only on the intrinsic validity or lack thereof of any argument proposed. For that is what really matters in the legitimate advancement of ideas if we take it down to brass tacks.
{6} I say "natural sphere of things" because on religious subject matters, there can be a supernatural dimension which needs to be accounted for by those who accept a particular religious weltanschauung in question. (Whatever it may be.)
{7} Such as the Laws of Identity and Non-Contradiction.
{8} It is generally a practice of those who are setting forth an argument in peer review journals or other mediums of this sort to denote their degrees relative to the subject matter being discussed. Such a practice is of course fine and proper in those environs to do. In weighing the merits of the arguments advanced, it is incumbent upon the reader who is interested in the subject matter to avoid accepting or rejecting propositions advanced by someone on those criteria rather than on the solidity (or lack thereof) of the arguments said individuals actually advance.
{9} There is also the appeal to an unnamed authority -often in the context of generalized statements. This can be either a legitimate or illegitimate method depending on the circumstances and the context in which this is conducted. Even when legitimate, this is not a very strong form of argument and therefore should be used prudently or in conjunction with other forms of argumentation which have a stronger foundation to them.
(With Apologies to the Late Aldous Huxley)
[Prefatory Note: This is an abridged version of a thread I first published on August 27, 2004 on critical thinking skills after being appalled at how poorly I had seen people utilize reason and logic over the span of not a few years at that time. The version below was abridged from the original piece and published to Facebook on January 27, 2009. However, since we are closing in on another election now, it seems appropriate to republish the note anew to this site as an aid to those who are endeavouring to deal with various and sundry "arguments" pro-offered by different people as a guide to help them in their discernment of whether said arguments are properly offered or not. -SM]
One of the most frequently means of arguing a point is resorting to an erroneous usage of what is called argument from authority. Now I should note in advance that to some extent, everyone relies on those whom are recognized to various degrees as "authorities" outside of themselves to develop and/or maintain a position in an argument. (As no one can possibly know everything there is to know about any subject in question, let alone the entire spectrum of subject matter.) Nonetheless, there are proper and improper ways of doing this -and the post you are reading will endeavour to explain the proper means versus the improper means of appealing to authority.
What is about to be covered here is hardly something that I am discussing for the first time. However, there is a perceived need to round out and develop a complementary thread to those where this issue was previously dealt with -a "counter-thread" if you will focusing more on positive exposition and less on negative pronouncements. For though I have dealt with this subject before, the genesis of this kind of argumentation was barely touched on in those links.{1} And in not dealing with the foundational presuppositions angle -mainly because I was livid when those threads were written for reasons I am not about to go into at this time- provided to some extent a kind of cover for those guilty of this fallacy to continue to perpetuate it.
With the reception of some emails espousing variations of this problem, essentially we reached critical mass. The previously gruff treatments of this subject was in large part because I cannot stand sophistic time wasters who prefer a character assassination to legitimate discussion of issues.{2} However, it is not only these sorts of individuals who engage in fallacious forms of argument from authority. No my friends, even people interested in genuine dialogue on issues often appropriate this method fallaciously. The question that needs to be answered is essentially one of how people can legitimately argue from authority -should they want to do this. In that regard, it is done primarily by noting first of all how one cannot legitimately do so -and from there avoiding the snares of improper argumentation methodology.{3} To assist in achieving this is the purpose of the thread you are reading.
To start with, arguments that base themselves on any presumed "credentials" of the person so arguing are intrinsically fallacious. I have dealt with this subject before in a number of ways -including using a methodology of argumentation which can be accurately referred to as reducionum ad absurdum. The reason why this kind of argument is logically specious should be obvious on its face. However, because many of those who are agenda-minded can tend to ignore what is (or should be) obvious, a few notes on the matter are worth sketching out for the benefit of those of good will.
To start with, it should be obvious that no opinion is either intrinsically valid or invalid on the basis of the espousing party's particular learning degrees. For one thing, oftentimes people posit degrees after their names of a generalized nature -such as a PhD. This can be deceiving to the reader because they would naturally presume that the author's degree so noted applies to the subject matter in which they are writing about. However, quite often this is not the case. And that of course brings us to the first principle that is essential to take into account when considering the accreditation of said writers -should they posit any of course.
--A recognized authority in one area is not necessarily worth listening to in another area.
It would involve a degree of investigation on the part of the inquirer to determine if such a person is actually to be listened to in the area in which they are speaking. Or should I say, it would be if their primary concern about considering the merits of an argument is based on letters after a name. Those who are familiar with the foundational tools of reason and logic are able to equitably weigh someone's arguments on those standards and receive a kind of "acid test reading" of the relative stability of the arguments advanced.{4} If the arguments pass muster there, then they are worth considering further whereas if they fail there, then there is no reason to consider them any further.{5}
--On topics which are of a controverted nature (or where there are disagreements among recognized experts), it is fallacious to accept the opinion of an authority.
Opinions are usually based on some form of argumentation; however not all forms of argumentation are equal. This is another area that could call for careful discernment -though even "experts" can be found to not infrequently argue in facile ways to support a particular opinion they may have on an issue. While it is true that it is not necessarily fallacious to accept the arguments of an authority which support a particular opinion; at the same time the arguments themselves had better have some solid foundation to them beyond the mere "say so" of the "expert" so cited. It should be obvious (though often it is not unfortunately) that if the authority being cited has grounded their opinion on fallacious argumentation or questionable evidences, then one should not be predisposed to accept their opinion on the matter in the natural sphere of things.{6}
--In areas where there is disagreement among recognized experts, individuals then have to turn to various sources. However, whatever the sources turned to, the purpose cannot be for conclusions or opinions of said authority.
In the above scenario, what must be sought out from the sources turned to is evidences for a particular opinion along with reasons and arguments all working in symbiotic fashion to sustain a particular opinion. Merely accepting conclusions or opinions in and of themselves is a fallacious appeal to authority.
--Appeals to any presumable "authoritative" source should take into account (to the extent this is possible) the track record of accuracy of the source being utilized.
As this is a principle that can itself be easily abused -as one person's conception of error is not necessarily the same as anothers- the general rules of charity should apply here. For those unaware of what I refer to, the principle to be considered basically is this one:
--Do not presume to put an unfavourable interpretation upon the words or actions of another because the same words or actions can be looked upon in different circumstances or contexts.
When there is an obvious misuse of a source in an argument, that is one thing. However, an argument that is based on one particular frame of reference (or context) may be true within that frame of reference but false within another frame of reference. To determine if this is the case or not would of course require some work to be done on the part of the inquirer.
To summarize the above points, these principles if followed will not guarantee that one will be successful in their quest to ascertain the truth from the varying threads of opinion or argumentation out there. However, along with the additional tools of logic and reason,{7} they will mitigate significantly the problem of falling into fallacious forms of argumentation as per the appealing to any presumed "authority." (Within the context of attempting to set forth or sustain a particular position within the framework of a dialogue or debate on issues.)
For it is neither necessarily fallacious nor improper to appeal to an authority in dialogue or debate (or other forms of discussion). Nor is it necessarily inappropriate for those who have certain specializations in a field to denote this with the credentials they have gathered.{8} However, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of doing this. Appeals to supposed "credentials" in order to buttress one's arguments (and try to at the same time silence an opposing view) is the tactics of a poltroon -no matter whom the party is who engages in these tactics.
Now obviously those with related credentials should be accorded a measure of respect. However, such individuals should never presume that they can protect themselves from criticism on this factor alone -particularly if their arguments are specious ones. Also, in the citing of authorities or sources to support one's point of view, one should be careful in how they go about interacting with the work of presumed "experts" to support a particular position being advanced and maintained by argument.{9}
In conclusion, I hope this brief post is of assistance to many in separating the wheat from the chaff and avoiding the all-too-common fallacious forms of argument from authority in your future arguments and elucidations.
Notes:
{1} I originally covered this in a very short thread back in 2003 titled "Sophistic Arguments Learned in Ten Minutes" or something along those lines. As the intended message that sarcastic approach took was not adequately realized by those who were targeted by it at the time; I am hesitant to recreate it here.
{2} In a footnote of the original text I mentioned those who are psychotic enough in their Orwellian Doublespeak methodology to accuse me (falsely) of slander after they have obviously (to anyone who is not blind) libeled me numerous times. (As a way of trying to compensate for their lacking of the basic mental equipment to separate actual slander or libel from a legitimate critique -even sharply- of them and their outlooks.)
{3} Logically if you avoid what is incorrect in your approach to issues, you end up by default utilizing a legitimate method of inquiry. This is the foundation behind the method that seeks what is true only after identifying first of all what is false to thereby narrow the number of potential paths of inquiry.
{4} I have in my life taken on and confuted "experts" in several fields. In the process, I have come to believe an old maxim of one of my intellectual mentors Arthur Jones that "ninety-five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash." And that includes by the way what is published by those who are called "experts." If they write in an area that they have extensive knowledge in, their views are of course to be accorded proper respect. However, if the arguments they utilize are shoddy, then no amount of appeal to their "expert status" can fix that deficiency. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 27, 2004)]
{5} Mike Mentzer was a large influence in refining my intellectual approach. Mike used to often dissuade people from accepting what he had to say on subjects of his field of expertise simply on the basis of him possessing one of the hallmark "credentials" in the particular field he was involved in. Indeed, rather than base any of his arguments on this factor, Mike would instead often make statements akin to the following:
"I've always reasoned that if the material I presented was valid in and of itself, was offered in a logical manner, and designed to appeal to one's reason and common sense, then the likelihood of it being accepted for its intrinsic worth was greater."
That is how I have throughout my adult life approached discussing any subject matter as a rule. It should go without saying that I therefore recommend the same approach to anyone who wants to make a contribution of value to the arena of ideas: focus only on the intrinsic validity or lack thereof of any argument proposed. For that is what really matters in the legitimate advancement of ideas if we take it down to brass tacks.
{6} I say "natural sphere of things" because on religious subject matters, there can be a supernatural dimension which needs to be accounted for by those who accept a particular religious weltanschauung in question. (Whatever it may be.)
{7} Such as the Laws of Identity and Non-Contradiction.
{8} It is generally a practice of those who are setting forth an argument in peer review journals or other mediums of this sort to denote their degrees relative to the subject matter being discussed. Such a practice is of course fine and proper in those environs to do. In weighing the merits of the arguments advanced, it is incumbent upon the reader who is interested in the subject matter to avoid accepting or rejecting propositions advanced by someone on those criteria rather than on the solidity (or lack thereof) of the arguments said individuals actually advance.
{9} There is also the appeal to an unnamed authority -often in the context of generalized statements. This can be either a legitimate or illegitimate method depending on the circumstances and the context in which this is conducted. Even when legitimate, this is not a very strong form of argument and therefore should be used prudently or in conjunction with other forms of argumentation which have a stronger foundation to them.
Sunday, July 19, 2020
Points to Ponder:
Now, my children, where do you get with your impatience and your grumbling? Do your affairs go any better? Do they cause you any less trouble? Is it not, rather, the other way around? You have a lot more trouble with them, and, what is even worse, you lose all the merit which you might have gained for Heaven. [St. John Vianney]
Now, my children, where do you get with your impatience and your grumbling? Do your affairs go any better? Do they cause you any less trouble? Is it not, rather, the other way around? You have a lot more trouble with them, and, what is even worse, you lose all the merit which you might have gained for Heaven. [St. John Vianney]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)