The folly of "authority"

I've been seeing a lot of posts from both sides of "the argument" using scientific qualifications as a means to make (what I understand to be) arguments from authority.This got me wondering about my understanding of the use of scientific qualifications.Here's my understanding of it all;I've always been under the impression that one's credentials were simply a way to demonstrate the accomplishment of an established standardof an amount of work to show a level of understanding (and/or competence) in a given field to the satisfaction of instructers with greater understanding/experience/training/knowlege in given field of study.I could understand how this would grant weight behind the opinions of one with such qualifications in a field, however, this does not make their conjecture (however educated it is) anything other then conjecture and neither does it mean that they are any less required to provide evidence to support their claims.Am I mistaken?

Thread copied here from the The folly of "authority" thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

We had a (rather confused) discussion of this not so long ago.Essentially, while an argument from authority is not logically valid, it can be a reasonable argument, so long as a genuine authority reflecting mainstream views in the appropriate field is cited. Non-mainstream views with significant support among relevant experts may be cited as possibilities, but it would be going too far to expect others to accept them on that basis. Crank views, even from those with relevant qualifications, can't be reasonably supported by authority at all.The main reason is practical - we can't know as much as the experts and may not be able to investigate a claim in sufficient depth. In that case, the consensus opinion of the experts may be as good as we can get.

When you do any piece of research you need to start with a research question. To get this you need to know what areas within your chosen field have gaps in.For example, if after doing your literature review you find there is no research into anxiety disorders in a prison population you could do some exploratory research, but first you need a question to answer.Once you have done that research (easier said than done) you publish your work and people get to break it apart.But as it is novel research the investigator would be the best person to ask if you had a question about anxiety disorders in a prison population.If s/he is a good scientist they will not go beyond the evidence in their discussion and comment on sources of error and things they would have done if they had more time, resources, access, etc.They will also play devil's advocate on what they could have done to improve the validity and rigour of the study.So as long as the scientists derives their conclusions from the evidence and can justify their conclusion in a transparent way, the research should speak for itself.Not the authority of the researcher.Does this help?

It is perfectly valid to point to someone else's research in place of doing your own. So long as you understand that this opens you up to any criticisms their research might be worth receiving, including the fact that it may not be based on sound evidence or any evidence at all.Jon

quote:

---

I've been seeing a lot of posts from both sides of "the argument" using scientific qualifications as a means to make (what I understand to be) arguments from authority.

---

The first thing I thought when I read this relates not to the qualifications but how they are represented and generally understood. What is often left out is the field of study relating to the qualifications. A PhD in astrophysics is valueless when you're talking biology.The trouble is that many people just look at the letters after the name and assume that means that the 'scientist' knows what they're talking about. This is a huge factor in public debate on scientific issues such as EvC and climate change. This can lead to some really stupid political decisions.

quote:

---

I could understand how this would grant weight behind the opinions of one with such qualifications in a field, however, this does not make their conjecture (however educated it is) anything other then conjecture and neither does it mean that they are any less required to provide evidence to support their claims.

---

I believe that conjecture by someone with a solid background in the field is certainly of more value than from an 'amateur' - science trained or not. Within my own specific field, I have to make judgments based on incomplete information all of the time. Conjecture. I rely on experience as much as on raw data and am usually right - within my specific field. Others with experience in related fields frequently get it wrong because they are missing important information (experience and data). This works both ways.The flipside of this is complacency. Experts can be wrong too. Evidence always wins.

Another thing: be extra careful about people who start with:"I'm not a scientist, but...."An argument from no authority is not better than and argument from authority.

This is the old SOURCE vs CONTENT issue.In many religions kids are taught to value the SOURCE over the actual content; "the Bible told me so" or "Pastor said ..."; it is a matter of TESTIFY.This need to follow SOURCE, the AUTHORITY all too often carries over into adulthood.

Scientific qualifications don't mean much to be honest.The highest qualification you can get in science is a PhD. A PhD just about prepares you to enter a career in research; to be an expert in anything more than the narrowest of slivers requires a decade of working as a scientist beyond that. Even long-standing professors are unlikely to have much knowledge beyond their particular specialities.Anyone who has a PhD in one area and uses it to justify their views on another is an idiot. I'm baffled by such people.

Whilst I doubt anyone is immune to the "argument from authority" fallacy I think it is most regularly deployed by the theistic side of the debate here at EvC.How often do we see the religious views and opinions of eminent (or even not so eminent) scientists held up as justification for theistic conclusions of one sort or another? From abortion to cosmological constants via the very existence of a "designer".....Whilst non-theists might cite the arguments of the likes of Stephen Hawking I haven't seen anyone say things along the lines of "Stephen Hawking is an atheist so there must be something to atheism". Conversely there are many example of theists citing the fact that so-and-so believes the same as them as some sort of evidential justification for the belief held.

Past the PhD stage isn't some sort of academic post effectively a qualification? A professorship or whatnot? And then there are fellowships of various societies and that sort of thing. And then prizes such the the Nobel....I think you are technically right on the qualification thing but there are various routes to scientific status beyond a "mere" PhD.Not that any of that provides any weight at to many of the redundant arguments of authority that are so often cited here at EvC.

There are such things, but they're not qualifications. Credentials, perhaps?

Yes - In the "argument from authority" context I thinkl "credentials" is exactly the word that describes what I am yabbering on about.

Mr Jack,I think you just nailed my argument in many fewer words.

As Heinlein noted:

Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973