In Reply to: I should correct you on your logic, too. posted by Pat D on July 2, 2010 at 20:31:11:
"Of course, accepting arguments from authorities in their own fields is not a fallacy."
If you are arguing with me and quoting a third party as your authority, then this will be convincing to you, since you accept that authority. But why should I accept your authority? Your authority might be mistaken or corrupt. If I have not already made a survey of the field I would have no way of knowing if your authority is suitable. I could, of course, accept your choice of the third party, but then I would be accepting you as an authority on selecting authorities.
In the end we are each, individually, forced to come to our own conclusions using our own senses, our own minds and a set of authorities that we choose according to our own knowledge and belief. The argument from authority is seldom convincing to a person who makes a habit of using his own mind. In a debate, the argument from authority is almost never convincing unless both parties subscribe to this authority for the subject matter under debate. In a totalitarian society, the argument from authority does have force, but in this case it is literal force. Thus we have the authority of the EPA which declares that CO2 is a pollutant and those who do not obey will ultimately be confronted by a bunch of armed men. Similarly, we have the moderators at HA, the inquisitors who rule that posts are in violation of "TOS 8". They enforce HA's epistemological dogma by physical banishment.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Who are the Grand Inquisitors? - Tony Lauck 07:45:32 07/03/10 (1)
- {Ego meets Cognitive dissonance} "I heard you twice the first time" ~NT - Cleantimestream 08:02:27 07/14/10 (0)