Thank you for your responce, my work schedule is rather hectic at the moment so I apologise it took so long to get back.
PaulK writes:
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.
I'm sorry, this is slightly confusing for me, how can an argument be logically invalid and still be reasonable?
Could you explain what a "genuine authority" is in context to what you mean? (More to the point, how does one determine what qualifies another to be a "genuine authority"?)
PaulK writes:
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.
Why?
The way I understand it, advancements in science are accepted based on the merit of the ideas in conjunction with the validity of the methods used to test the idea.
Why should it matter if the idea is popular or not?
PaulK writes:
Crank views, even from those with relevant qualifications, can't be reasonably supported by authority at all.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "mainstream".
PaulK writes:
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.
Forgive me, but I find this reasoning highly questionable.
1) "we can't know as much as the experts..."
I disagree. If what seperates the leyfolk from the experts is a matter of formal education vs. informal education (or simplly an incomplete formal education), what you are in saying is that it is impossible to obtain higher knowlege in a given field outside of a formal setting.
2)"...and may not be able to investigate a claim in sufficient depth."
Yet it could also be said that we may be able to investigate a claim in sufficient depth. Wouldn't that entirely depend on a case by case basis? If an experament was performed, wouldn't the basis of determining if the results hold merrit be decided based on the observations made, methodology used, repeatability of the experament, understanding of the observations made, and the "peer review" process?
3) "In that case, the consensus opinion of the experts may be as good as we can get."
Thats presuming a lot...
Once again, thank you for responding. I don't know when I'll find time to respond more, but I appreciate it none the less!
™ Version 4.2