Y Safle

Have you noticed how our current world wants qualifications for everything? These days if you are to be a minister of religion, you need to have a degree or some such qualification (despite the fact that perhaps the greatest preacher of the 20th Century had no such qualifications, neither did many of the methodist, nor indeed did the ministers of the early church).

And it does not stop there. If someone is asked to give comment on a subject then they need to have a degree or qualification. Stephen L Gibson, on his truth driven thinking podcast seems to feel it is important to list his contributers qualifications before they begin, as though the acquisition of post nominals is a good guide to someone’s ability to discern truth.

Of course, this is not entirely foolish. If I need medical advice I would rather ask a doctor than a first aider, and we understand that in any profession, people who have trained in a subject and continue to work in that subject to understand it will have a better handle on the subject matter then a mere dabbler.

But it is fallacious to suggest that because someone has a qualification in a subject, that we should accept any proposition of theirs on that basis alone.

Indeed this is the fallacy of appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). If someone introduces an appeal to authority in an argument, there are certain steps that we really must take before accepting what that authority says:

1. Has the argument of that authority been properly quoted and represented? If not, we reject it.
2. Do we need the appeal to authority, or can we decide on this issue without it? If we can, we should.
3. Is the authority actually an expert on the matter at hand?
4. Is the authority unbiased? Microsoft manages to commission plenty of “independent” reports that reveal how good its products are! But will that independent researcher really bite the hand that feeds him?
5. Is the authority actually in sync with the consensus of expert opinion in the field? It is certainly possible that the expert is right and the consensus is wrong, but we are back to relying on evaluation of the case on its merits if the expert is disagreeing with the consensus on the issue.

So those are some ideas on avoiding the fallacy of the appeal to authority. So why do we want everyone to be experts before we will even listen to them?

Is it that it is too hard to think for ourselves on an issue if an expert is not available to guide us? Look at point 2 again. If we can determine an issue ourselves, then we should.

Like when we look at the war in the middle east. Two sides hurling bombs at each other. Are we to listen to what we are told to think by an appropriate expert? In a comment last night on this blog, David suggested that one should have a qualification in International Law, or be an International Human Rights Lawyer before being able to comment on war crimes perpetrated by the two parties.

This is the trap that leads to a misplaced appeal to authority. We need to judge these issues for ourselves, rather than rely on experts to do so for us. What, should we let our governments decide these issues (by exercising a veto in the UN)? It should now be clear from the discussion above what is wrong with that notion.

No, the onus is on us to impartially consider the facts, and unpalatable as that may be, to come to a rational judgement on the issue.

A rational judgement is open to challenge - but not by appeal to authority. By reassessment of the facts at issue.