The folly of "authority"

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.

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

quote:

---

Mr Jack writes:

​

Anyone who has a PhD in one area and uses it to justify their views on another is an idiot.

​

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

---

Exactly.I do think the biggest problem isn't that 'experts' are overconfident in other fields but that people believe them without thinking or checking. The late 'great' Henry Morris, who had so much to say on evolution and the origin of the world was a civil engineer.What's even worse is that when any celebrity speaks about anything, people listen. This is the reason that advertisers use them. This isn't limited to the authority of scientific qualifications. Why a movie stars opinion on a scientific or political argument has any authority, I don't know.I think the process is similar to Brand Awareness used in marketing. A recognised name, (like Dawkins) adds weight to the argument. In a similar manner, 'scientist' and 'PhD' are recognised stamps of authority - brands, if you will. I believe that the 'science brands'TM would have a more powerful effect on people who pride themselves on rational thought than other 'brands'. In a way, it's not about the argument but the presentation.Kent Hovind did everything in his power to 'suggest' that he had a real PhD for exactly this reason.One thing I have learned (and been taught) is that none of us is immune to this effect. If you are aware of it, you can protect yourself to a degree; If you delude yourself into thinking you're immune, you are doomed.