overuse of the argument from authority

[Joe Meert]

Creationists, and others use this logical argument rather often in discussions such as these. I would like to offer a caution regarding the overuse of this logical fallacy. The idea behind argument from authority is this:

So and so (well known expert in some field Y) says that X is the way and therefore this is a sound argument.

The problem arises when X is well outside the arena of expertise of so-and-so who has lead groundbreaking research in Y. If this is the argument, then the accusation of argument from authority is correct. Too often, it is misused (by ye-creationists and others). Imagine the following scenario:

Jane has a lump in her breast, she goes to two cancer experts and the diagnosis is as follows:

(1) Cancer Physician #1: This is an invasive type of carcinoma, we must treat it aggresively and consider mastectomy. In a week, it may matasticize. The physician has worked extensively on the evolution of breast cancers. This physician has treated over 2000 breast cancer patients and boasts a 75% cure rate.
(2) Cancer Physician #2: This is an invasive type of carcinoma, we must treat it aggresively, but we may be able to avoid mastectomy. In a week, it may matastacize. The physician was trained at a secular University and considers creationism silly. This physician has treated over 500 breast cancer patients and boasts a 65% cure rate.

Jane is dubious of authoratative arguments having spent time on theology.web. She decides to ask some others. Jimmy, who is a good biology student and a fan of breasts tells Jane:

"Hey that lump is just a bruise, give it a week and it will go away". Jimmy has seen nearly 20 photos of breasts, but knows nothing about cancer.

Jane goes to a faith healer who tells her:

"Hey, it's nothing more than a bruise, give it a week and it will go away." The faith healer has visions nearly 500 times and nearly 2% of them have some resemblance to fact.

Jane knows that the argument is 2:2 and she is lost. She goes to her neighbor Sara and tells her of the people who have examined her situation. Sara, is not privvy to anything more than exactly what Jane tells her. She opts to side with authority and tells Jane to seek treatment. Jane asks her preacher from AIG who tells her to be dubious of arguments based solely on the opinion of those trained in secular medicine. Jane waits a week, the cancer invades her other organs and she dies in one month.

Now, before you jump on me and say this is not applicable to young earth creationism, I urge caution. Many of the arguments made against such things as a Noachian flood have a long, well-researched background. The geologists who have looked at the evidence have looked at thousands of outcrops and many rocks before reaching their conclusions. An argument from authority is as good as the evidence backing it. It is a completely valid argument if the authority is trained in the subject, familiar with the evidence and able to offer a learned view on the subject.
It is not an argument from authority to note that Niles Eldredge finds good evidence for evolution. It is not an argument from authority to note that geologists do not find evidence for a global flood in the past 10,0000+ years. It is not an argument from authority to claim that biblical scholars have found great parallels between the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh and the Naochian fairy tale. This information is based upon learned scholarship and is backed by a wealth of data.
The 'authority' argument is misused when someone is arguing clearly outside of their field and also where the vast majority of data argue against their stance. For example, if one were to argue that Sarfati or Taz Walker were experts in geology and therefore their arguments regarding flood geology carry some weight, it would be reasonable and prudent to question those arguments because neither have qualifications befitting their proclamations. It IS NOT incorrect to defer to the knowledge of people who are trained in the subject as authorities. Look deep into creationists arguments and you will mostly find that they argue well outside of their arenas of expertise. When they DO argue in their arena of expertise (the only case I can think of is Baumgardner) it is perfectly ok to note the hypocrisy of their arguments (e.g. writing million year time scale arguments while claiming to young earth dogma) as well as point out the absurd consequences of their arguments (e.g. shallow oceans). In fact, it is imperative to back such arguments with evidence when dealing with experts in a field. However, let me reiterate that when a scholar has credentials in a field and a deep knowledge of that field, it is quite appropriate to make an argument from authority and the followup arguments should deal specifically with the scientific aspects of the arguments. One last example:

A dentist examines Jane and says "It's just a bruise, no need to worry".

Here is a person trained in the medical arts. Is he an authority? Just because a person has a degree in say, geology, does not mean he or she, is well versed in all aspects of that subject. For example, Steve Austin writes articles on geochronology, but has no background in the subject. His 'authority' is no more valid than the dentist in the example above. One must be careful about the arguments from authority, but they are not a priori incorrect or even illogical. It always depends upon the credentials and experience of the authority. In fact, we rely on the opinion of authority in everday life with good success.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dr.GH]

Well put.

But, as someone who has published reviewed articles in a range of topics, I would note that if someone wishes to assert that they have professional qualifications in a topic area, they should present them in the form of a bibliography, or curriculum vita. I have done this here for a number of topics. I am familiar with the academic achievements of Prof. Meert, for another example.

Otherewise, specific claims should be supported with refences to published sources. If someone bases their position on published sources, their personal academic accomplishments are not in question. One must consider the quality of the source, however. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Science, or Nature carry weight. Profesional societies publish specialist journals that hold weight. Moonbeam Bathers Gazette holds nothing for the sciences. Also, individuals do sometimes fail to be able to understand the material they reference. In such a case, where someone repeatedly is seen unable to even read scientific papers accurately, it is entirely appropriate to view anything they present with suspicion.

[Minnesota]

Joe,

Nice post; however, I have a very strong suspicion that you're preaching to the choir. I would bet good money that, at the very least, some of the most ardent and vocal of the posters are well aware of the ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, and use it knowing full well that it is fallacious. Although I understand why it happens, it's irritating to see it repeatedly used, especially in the more blatant cases, where one is more inclined to laugh than to respond.

This post has been edited to address Socrates remarks directly below, which is an excellent example of someone who either remains oblivious as to what the ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY means, or does know, but chooses to ignore it .



Joe Meert: It is not an argument from authority to note that Niles Eldredge finds good evidence for evolution. ”



Socrates: Of course it is, and in many aspects of evolution he is not qualified

Niles Eldridge--a PhD paleontologist who chairs the Committee on Evolutionary Processes, & Curator, Division of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History-- is certainly an authority on evolution, at least in the eyes of the secular world-----where it counts. So, when Socrates claims that a statement noting that, any good evidence that Eldridge finds for evolution, is nothing more than an Argument From Authority, it is a supremely gross instance of ignorance, either actual or feigned.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107746#post107746)
Joe Meert:

Creationists, and others use this logical argument rather often in discussions such as these. I would like to offer a caution regarding the overuse of this logical fallacy. The idea behind argument from authority is this:

Humph, and Meert is trying to lecture us on logic, in which he is not qualified. Anyway, as I've pointed out, creationists generally do NOT use the appeal to authority, while evolutionists OFTEN claim that we should believe in evolution because "most scientists accept it". Creationists point to highly qualified creationist scientists to refute nonsense like "no real scientist believes in biblical creation."


It is not an argument from authority to note that Niles Eldredge finds good evidence for evolution.

Of course it is, and in many aspects of evolution he is not qualified -- see this review www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv15n2_eldredge.asp


It is not an argument from authority to note that geologists do not find evidence for a global flood in the past 10,0000+ years.

Neither is it an argument from authority to point out that they have a belief system that rules out the Flood a priori, like Hutton www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/hutton.asp


It is not an argument from authority to claim that biblical scholars have found great parallels between the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh and the Naochian fairy tale. This information is based upon learned scholarship and is backed by a wealth of data.

And here is Meert himself pontificating on Biblical and archaeological matters, in which he is not qualified. It's more likely that Gilgamesh is derived from Genesis, and the Gilgamesh-derivation idea came from scholars with a presupposition against divine inspiration and a priori belief that religion evolved from polytheism towards monotheism. E.g. the Gilgamesh ark is a cube, with only one dimension to remember. See also http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-285.htm


When they DO argue in their arena of expertise (the only case I can think of is Baumgardner) it is perfectly ok to note the hypocrisy of their arguments (e.g. writing million year time scale arguments while claiming to young earth dogma)

Meert is so boring -- being an advocate of censorship and discrimination against creationists, then hypocritically whinging when creationists circumvent this. And of course, had Baumgardner inserted a disclaimer, either his co-authors or the referees (who all know what he believes) would have deleted it. And if Baumgardner had withdrawn his name from his joint work, then the likes of Meert would attack him for not publishing! There's no pleasing these anticreationists.

[Undomiel]

I went to several doctors for digestive problems. I had countless upper gi's, I was poked and prodded and they never did figure out what was wrong with me. It took my sister to figure it out, and she holds no degrees whatsoever. After hearing me complain about it repeatedly, she said, "well, what are you eating regularly? perhaps your allergic to something you're eating and it's effecting you in this fashion." That's exactly what it was. I was allergic to something I was eating everyday and it was ALSO on the bland diet the doctor had prescribed me for my digestive problems - ironic. It wasn't the doctors fault, it just wasn't their field of specialization -- food allergies, I mean. They were trained to give their patients with digestive problems, low stress foods and upper gi's to ensure there wasn't an ulcerative condition, which is exactly what they did. They did their work according to the holy writ. But none of them even considered it might be a food allergy because that wasn't their speciality. Lord knows how many bottles of Mylanta II I had to drink before my sister figured it out, 2 years later. Usually the experts are the best people to go to for information, but this doesn't entirely discount or rule out the wisdom, gifts, intelligence or just plain common sense of other people. Don't you agree?

[Undomiel]

:huh: Maybe it's my foot odor.

[Joe Meert]

:huh: Maybe it's my foot odor.


JM: Likely so.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Undomiel]

But I offered a non-combative, no ad hominems in sight response, with a query, and you dismissed it offhand in favor of name calling with the other fella. If you're trying to have a rational discussion, why ignore the one person that wants to have one with you?

[Undomiel]

Guess I need to change my avatar. heh heh heh heh

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 01:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107812#post107812)
Joe Meert:



JM; Care to back this up with some evidence? Would you care to list my professional and experiential qualifications in logic? Please cite, courses, degrees, practical experience. This helps establish the fact that you're not just spitballing.



JM: Care to back that up with some evidence? Please indicate my biblical background for those here who are unfamiliar with it. List both my educational and practical experience please? Give dates, etc to support your arguments.





Please supply evidence to support your accusations or withdraw them as unsupported. While, you may find me 'boring', you have not provided evidence in support of your accusations. Apparently, the moderators feel it is ok to make these unsupported accusations so long as you agree with the moderators. I will admit that such bias is prevalent, but in the interest of demonstrating that you are posting without forethought, I will request that you supply evidence to support the claims you made above. This is eerily reminiscent of the claims made by Sarfati in his original AIG article where he got my name and my religious beliefs wrong because he failed to verify either one.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 01:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107815#post107815)
Undomiel:

But I offered a non-combative, no ad hominems in sight response, with a query, and you dismissed it offhand in favor of name calling with the other fella. If you're trying to have a rational discussion, why ignore the one person that wants to have one with you?

JM: You offered a personal anecdote. Apparently, you'd rather listen to your sister than someone with medical training. What percentage of the time would you say such a view is beneficial? What name calling are you referring to? You suggested it might be foot odor, am I in any position to disagree?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Minnesota]

This is just a notification that additional material relating to a remark made by Socrates has been edited into my post #3 above.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 06:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107832#post107832)
Joe Meert:



JM: You offered a personal anecdote. Apparently, you'd rather listen to your sister than someone with medical training. What percentage of the time would you say such a view is beneficial? What name calling are you referring to? You suggested it might be foot odor, am I in any position to disagree?

Cheers

Joe Meert

They usually do have the MOST answers, but it isn't always the case.

The people with medical training at the time, had no idea what was wrong with me. So what was I supposed to listen to? There was nothing to follow except the bland diet, which I did follow and which just happened to contain the very thing that was making me sick in the first place. Anyway, I try to go to the experts first on whatever subject I need answers for but in the absence of sufficient answers, I'm just as likely to go to people who care about me for those answers.

[Dee Dee Warren]

What name calling are you referring to?

Joe are you denying that you just engaged in extreme namecalling against Soc that would not have been allowed even in a period of nonheavy moderation? Think really carefully before you answer.

[Socrates]

Meert:Care to back this up with some evidence? Would you care to list my professional and experiential qualifications in logic? Please cite, courses, degrees, practical experience. This helps establish the fact that you're not just spitballing.It's pretty obvious you are logically challenged and biblically illiterate, and nothing in your writings indicates otherwise. Certainly your prattlings forth on logic and Genesis deserve no credence.

You remind me of some of the atheists here who are so obviously atheistic judging by their writings, but make similar demands that I prove that they are atheists, yet they are and they know it and have said so elsewhere. But then again, Meert has whinged about being called an atheist by AiG, who evidently got this information from something Meert had posted himself! So I'm not going to play these pathetic games with known anti-christians.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Please nobody else post here until Joe answers my question. Thank you.

[Joe Meert]

You remind me of some of the atheists here who are so obviously atheistic judging by their writings, but make similar demands that I prove that they are atheists, yet they are and they know it and have said so elsewhere. But then again, Meert has whinged about being called an atheist by AiG, who evidently got this information from something Meert had posted himself! So I'm not going to play these pathetic games with known anti-christians.


JM: In other words, you have no basis other than your personal opinion. I will give that opinion all the respect it deserves. As usual, when asked for evidence, you resort to ad-hominem.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 02:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107882#post107882)
Dee Dee Warren:



Joe are you denying that you just engaged in extreme namecalling against Soc that would not have been allowed even in a period of nonheavy moderation? Think really carefully before you answer.

I was replying to undomiel, who I don't recall insulting. As far as soc goes, extreme is apparently in the eye of the beholder. Soc makes plenty of unsubstantiated personal attacks without so much as a blink from the moderators.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Joe, we will have none of your games. If you are here simply to cause trouble and complain, please spare us.

This is what Undomiel said:


Today @ 01:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107815#post107815)
Undomiel:

But I offered a non-combative, no ad hominems in sight response, with a query, and you dismissed it offhand in favor of name calling with the other fella. If you're trying to have a rational discussion, why ignore the one person that wants to have one with you?

He made it clear what post he was referring to. Your post to Socrates.

You said,


Today @ 01:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107832#post107832)
Joe Meert:


JM: You offered a personal anecdote. Apparently, you'd rather listen to your sister than someone with medical training. What percentage of the time would you say such a view is beneficial? What name calling are you referring to? You suggested it might be foot odor, am I in any position to disagree?


I am not buying your game Joe, and this is an official multiple warning to you.

First - After the TFS edited your post AND posted a warning, you apparently deleted the post which contained a Moderator warning, thus, in effect deleting a Moderator's Post. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that is not to be done. You then tried to pretend as if you never made the post which is obvious by your post to Undomiel but thought better of it when I directly challenged you. Such troublemaking games are not welcome on this board. That is enough to get you suspended right then.

Second - You engaged in identity insinuation. That is enough to get you suspended right then.

Third - You are flagrantly violating the rules against the voicing of Moderator greivances in the thread. That during the time of heavy moderation is enough to get you suspended right then.

In short, you have proven to me that you are a troublemaker. One more act of this sort, and you will be suspended from the site.

[Joe Meert]

He made it clear what post he was referring to. Your post to Socrates.



JM: Sorry, I did not catch that. As far as posting an insult to Soc, why did you delete my admission? If you recall, I was merely demonstrating that it's easy to hurl insults back and forth. You seemed to misinterpret my rationale for insulting. You also deleted my statement that it seems fine for Soc to hurl insults without validation, but turnabout is not fair play here. I can live with that just fine, but please don't deny such bias exists by deleting it out of a post.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Joe are you slow on the uptake today? If you continue to challenge Moderator decisions on the thread you will be suspended. I am giving you more grace than I had peviously stated in which I said if you did it again (and you did) you would be suspended. What you posted and deleted dishonestly was way beyond what anyone has said here and by all rights should have gotten you immediately suspended as it was said during a period of heavy moderation. You have been shown more grace than deserved at this point. You are the one pushing the rules here. Soc has no more posted insults than anyone else since this time of moderation, or did you you miss where he was called dishonest on this very thread. Stop your hypocrisy please, I just ate.

[Joe Meert]

JM: I am not slow on the uptake at all. I understand the rules of engagement perfectly as you have told me here. If you look carefully at the post in question, my insult was excessive but it was made solely to prove the point that if an exchange of insults is considered good argument, then I can insult with the best of them. For the over-the-top insult, I apologize. The thread was started with a purpose of evaluating the oft-made claim that argument from authority is not useful. Maybe we can return to that idea. In an effort to attempt to continue the discussion, let me also address a mistaken claim about Thomas Kuhn's work.

Kuhn states that a paradigm governs interpretation within science. This is only partly accurate. Kuhn also notes that within the paradigm, there exists a subset of scientists who work to overthrow the reigning paradigm. What is not noted is that these heretical scientists operate within the confines of the existing paradigm and present scientific evidence through normal channels meant to overthrow the paradigm. For example, Wegener worked within the existing paradigm in order to establish continental drift. Wegener's ideas were properly criticized within the paradigm leading others to consider other tests of the idea. Eventually, even though much of Wegener's original hypothesis was incorrect, enough people looked for evidence to overturn the paradigm. The fact that paradigm shifts occur is good evidence that opposing viewpoints are considered and evaluated according to their merits. Kuhn's philosophy is often misrepresented to mean that opposing viewpoints are not heard within the paradigm. Furthermore, it seems to escape fideistic philosophers and their presupposionalist twins that the paradigm shifted from young earth special creation to old earth evolution over 200 years ago. Yet, in keeping with the definition of a pseudoscience, young earth special creation has not changed since its inception. The young earth paradigm is nothing more than fideistic dogma masquerading under the pseudonym of creation science. There is simply no observation that will change the basic conclusion and therefore, young earth creationism ceased to be a paradigm and has become pseudoscience. Murray Gell-Mann, speaking on creationism during a Louisiana court case noted that "it's not so much that we were being attacked from the outside, since outsiders can make worthwhile contributions. It's that these people (creationists) were talking utter nonsense. Just because one is arguing outside the paradigm does not mean that (a) the paradigm is wrong nor (b) that their arguments have any merit.
A final point, Soc asserts that my materialistic bias blinds me to evidence of the Noachian flood. This is patently false, what has convinced me that a global flood has not happened is the same thing that convinced young earth creationists of the 1700-1800's that a global flood did not happen. It is the evidence rather than the bias that precludes the notion of a Noachian flood. I have challenged Soc and any other creationist to please present us with the global stratigraphic evidence showing the pre, syn and post flood rocks. The Noachian flood is the key geologic event in young earth dogma and as such, these key time markers in the flood should be easily and unambiguously identified. Yet, what do we find? Taz Walker's model is full of vagaries, the strata are not identified on a global basis nor even on a name basis. Northrup's model is similarly vague. Some creationists assign the flood to all post-Proterozoic strata whilst others ascribe it solely in the Precambrian. So, if the bible speaks so clearly and unambiguously regarding this key geologic event, why is it that no creationist can define the onset, peak and post flood strata? Why is it that creationists who looked for the evidence, came away convinced that no single Noachian flood took place?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Dee Dee Warren]

Joe thank you for your apology. I do think an apology is in order as well for deleting a Moderator's comment but I will not push the issue. As far as insults, check out Minnesota's comment in the Platypus thread. Would Soc now be justified in coming back and posting the same thing you did in this thread to prove a point? I do not expect an answer, I am just pointing out from the Moderators point of view the extreme hypocrisy we see and have seen here.

Carry on with the conversation at hand.

[Jimmy Higgins]

OY! But the issue still really hasn't been addressed.

The issue at hand is the argument of authority, or the YEC-version, the argument from a bare-majority authority. Take me for instance. I could say that I have logged more soil and rock classifications than any YEC geologist Socrates can name. Yet, when it comes to Socrates, it is not my experience he bashes, its my ideaology.

The same can be said with Joe Meert. Joe Meert makes an extremely clean well thought out point. Socrates responds by saying,

Humph, and Meert is trying to lecture us on logic, in which he is not qualified.
Meert was never doing a formal logic proof. He was doing an analogy, which just about anyone is qualified to do.

You remind me of some of the atheists here who are so obviously atheistic judging by their writings, but make similar demands that I prove that they are atheists, yet they are and they know it and have said so elsewhere. But then again, Meert has whinged about being called an atheist by AiG, who evidently got this information from something Meert had posted himself! So I'm not going to play these pathetic games with known anti-christians.
Which boils down to, "Meert, you don't believe what I believe, so I'm not going to play with you."
Barely addresses the issues Meert brings up.

And furthermore, Socrates once again uses links to two sites, ICR and AIG, to "refute" claims made by Meert. If this isn't an argument from authority, what is?

[Joe_Sixpack]

DDW complains:

"Joe are you denying that you just engaged in extreme namecalling against Soc that would not have been allowed even in a period of nonheavy moderation? Think really carefully before you answer."

Very next post, which is completely uncensored, Socrates says:

"It's pretty obvious you are logically challenged and biblically illiterate, and nothing in your writings indicates otherwise."

Anyone else see something strange with this?

Joe Six Pack, flagrantly and willfully disregard the rules one more time in that manner, and you will be suspended from this site. You have no idea what Meert posted and it was way beyond the bounds. Soc's comments were in response to Meert's request for further illiteration and despite your thin skin, not every observation that a person may be incompetent in area is name-calling. It was relevant to the point in question since the subject is logical fallacies and Meert made a comment requiring Biblical scholarship. But I do repeat. If you voice one more Moderator complaint in a thread, you will be suspended. That is more grace then I am required to give since during this period of heavy moderation it was stated there would be ZERO TOLERATION for such antics, and you had the benefit of reading my warnings to Meert in this regard.