Logical fallacy "Appeal to authority"

[Michael]

Patients simply rely on the authority of their doctor

Yes, and when they do this they are appealing to authority. Which in some cases lands them 6 feet other - but in most cases it doesn't. Which is why we trust doctors or other experts.

It's still an act of appealing to authority and in fact the doctor is sometimes wrong - which is why appealing to an authority as a means of saying your statement is true - is a fallacy. And that's all we're really asking here.

And as a further point, the task of determining the nature of being in error is assigned to professional bodies who are knowledgeable about the issue (like say medical boards in the case of doctors, as opposed to garbage collectors or even archeologists). Anyone who is a professional representative must have recourse to the issue of "authority" otherwise their professional field is useless and meaningless (do car mechanics thoroughly explain their procedures to people who haven't the foggiest about combustion engines? Are they required to only proceed if their customers are fully aware of the issue at hand, thus removing them from the grave error of simply relying on authority?)

So Ron is or is not appealing to authority when he invokes Xenu as the ultimate source of Ron's information (and why you should listen to him, Ron is after all JUST a messenger... a Prophet if you will).

In short, I am still unclear as to whether in the example of Ron Hubbard you agree Ron is appealing to authority?

 

[Michael]

Suppose there is a Xenu. So what??? What makes Xenu a valid authority?

Nothing - the same is true of Gods and Goddesses, which is a side point but not what I'm really getting at.

First things first,
Michael

 

[lightgigantic]

Michael

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Patients simply rely on the authority of their doctor
”
Yes, and when they do this they are appealing to authority. Which in some cases lands them 6 feet other - but in most cases it doesn't. Which is why we trust doctors or other experts.

It's still an act of appealing to authority and in fact the doctor is sometimes wrong - which is why appealing to an authority as a means of saying your statement is true - is a fallacy. And that's all we're really asking here.

Since you seem to agree that in most cases it doesn't, indicating authority as the calling sign of fallacy is even more ludicrous.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
And as a further point, the task of determining the nature of being in error is assigned to professional bodies who are knowledgeable about the issue (like say medical boards in the case of doctors, as opposed to garbage collectors or even archeologists). Anyone who is a professional representative must have recourse to the issue of "authority" otherwise their professional field is useless and meaningless (do car mechanics thoroughly explain their procedures to people who haven't the foggiest about combustion engines? Are they required to only proceed if their customers are fully aware of the issue at hand, thus removing them from the grave error of simply relying on authority?)
”
So Ron is or is not appealing to authority when he invokes Xenu as the ultimate source of Ron's information (and why you should listen to him, Ron is after all JUST a messenger... a Prophet if you will).

In short, I am still unclear as to whether in the example of Ron Hubbard you agree Ron is appealing to authority?

Yes Ron is using authority ..... but that isn't the prime reason for his error (after all, even Doctor A is using authority) ... I challenge you to indicate any professional in any field that doesn't have recourse to authority (and that also is bereft of examples whose authority is misplaced).

 

[Michael]

Yes Ron is using authority .....

OMG finally.

Wow, one down. Ron Hubbard is fallaciously appealing to authority when he uses Xenu as a proxy to promulgate his own message.

Now WHY? Why does Ron Hubbard use Xenu as a proxy? Why doesn't he instead just say that is is He, Ron Hubbard who thinks this or that? Why the fall back on Xenu? Why claim he is only a messenger, a prophet, and not the actual person who has concocted these stories?


Any ideas?

..... but that isn't the prime reason for his error (after all, even Doctor A is using authority) ... I challenge you to indicate any professional in any field that doesn't have recourse to authority (and that also is bereft of examples whose authority is misplaced).

Well, how about Socrates? Gautama Buddha? René Descartes? Bertrand Russell? Immanuel Kant? Joseph Campbell?


When these people wrote their treaties were they appealing to authority or were they appealing to reason?

Michael

 

[lightgigantic]

OMG finally.

Wow, one down. Ron Hubbard is fallaciously appealing to authority when he uses Xenu as a proxy to promulgate his own message.

Now WHY? Why does Ron Hubbard use Xenu as a proxy? Why doesn't he instead just say that is is He, Ron Hubbard who thinks this or that? Why the fall back on Xenu? Why claim he is only a messenger, a prophet, and not the actual person who has concocted these stories?


Any ideas?

heaps of writings about this in scripture

eg
http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/12/135/en

One often thinks of conducting business to improve devotional activity. But the contamination is so strong that it may later develop into misunderstanding, described as kuṭi-nāṭi (faultfinding) and pratiṣṭhāśā (the desire for name and fame and for high position), jīva-hiḿsā (envy of other living entities), niṣiddhācāra (accepting things forbidden in the śāstra), kāma (desire for material gain) and pūjā (hankering for popularity). The word kuṭi-nāṭi means "duplicity." As an example of pratiṣṭhāśā, one may attempt to imitate Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura by living in a solitary place. One's real desire may be for name and fame — in other words, one thinks that fools will accept one to be as good as Haridāsa Ṭhākura just because one lives in a solitary place. These are all material desires. A neophyte devotee is certain to be attacked by other material desires as well, namely desires for women and money. In this way the heart is again filled with dirty things and becomes harder and harder, like that of a materialist. Gradually one desires to become a reputed devotee or an avatāra (incarnation).

Well, how about Socrates? Gautama Buddha? René Descartes? Bertrand Russell? Immanuel Kant? Joseph Campbell?

If they don't command authority, why would one use a quote from them on a dust cover of a book (for example)?

Wisdom (even misalligned wisdom I guess) commands authority.
Its the nature of truth (or something posing as it).

When these people wrote their treaties were they appealing to authority or were they appealing to reason?

Michael

if they didn't establish their authority, you wouldn't be able to find numerous copies of their work.

Basically authority can establish itself in one or more of these six fields- beauty, intelligence, wisdom, renunciation, fame and/or strength.

Because god possesses all of these opulences in full he has the greatest authority.

 

[Michael]

heaps of writings about this in scripture

eg
http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/12/135/en

One often thinks of conducting business to improve devotional activity. But the contamination is so strong that it may later develop into misunderstanding, described as kuṭi-nāṭi (faultfinding) and pratiṣṭhāśā (the desire for name and fame and for high position), jīva-hiḿsā (envy of other living entities), niṣiddhācāra (accepting things forbidden in the śāstra), kāma (desire for material gain) and pūjā (hankering for popularity). The word kuṭi-nāṭi means "duplicity." As an example of pratiṣṭhāśā, one may attempt to imitate Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura by living in a solitary place. One's real desire may be for name and fame — in other words, one thinks that fools will accept one to be as good as Haridāsa Ṭhākura just because one lives in a solitary place. These are all material desires. A neophyte devotee is certain to be attacked by other material desires as well, namely desires for women and money. In this way the heart is again filled with dirty things and becomes harder and harder, like that of a materialist. Gradually one desires to become a reputed devotee or an avatāra (incarnation).

In short: Ron Hubbard was a bullshit artist and pulled a fast one on the gullible. He used people's naivity and desire to believe there is something more to their pathetic small existence to have power over them.

Sound about right?

 

[Michael]

If they don't command authority, why would one use a quote from them on a dust cover of a book (for example)?

Wisdom (even misalligned wisdom I guess) commands authority.
Its the nature of truth (or something posing as it).



if they didn't establish their authority, you wouldn't be able to find numerous copies of their work.

Basically authority can establish itself in one or more of these six fields- beauty, intelligence, wisdom, renunciation, fame and/or strength.

Because god possesses all of these opulences in full he has the greatest authority.

I'm referring to when they lived - they appealed to reason to make their case - not the Gods. They didn't say: The Goddess said such and such to me therefor you should do such and such. They said: I've sat down and given it some thought and I think such and such...

The difference is astronomical.


NOTE: Yeah, now people refer to these guys to make their case. When they do so, they are committing the fallacy: Appealing to Authority.

I admire Socrates for coming up with some interesting ideas BUT he was also completely wrong on many points. The brain for one.

 

[lightgigantic]

In short: Ron Hubbard was a bullshit artist and pulled a fast one on the gullible. He used people's naivity and desire to believe there is something more to their pathetic small existence to have power over them.

Sound about right?

er ... no

did you read the italics?

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm referring to when they lived - they appealed to reason to make their case - not the Gods.

wisdom is but one opulence that can establish authority

They didn't say: The Goddess said such and such to me therefor you should do such and such. They said: I've sat down and given it some thought and I think such and such...

The difference is astronomical.

IOW they said "look at how brainy I am so shut up and listen to me"
:shrug:

NOTE: Yeah, now people refer to these guys to make their case. When they do so, they are committing the fallacy: Appealing to Authority.

I admire Socrates for coming up with some interesting ideas BUT he was also completely wrong on many points. The brain for one.

authority is a natural consequence of beauty, wealth, wisdom, renunciation, fame and/or strength.

wherever these things exist in exceptional quantities you have authority

whether such authority is properly aligned or misaligned is a separate issue, since it is determined by qualification, not authority. (IOW the question whether something is fallacious or not is determined by persons qualified in the field to analyze it - as opposed to some off the cuff remark about authority)

Indicating authority as the calling sign of fallacy is ludicrous.

 

[Michael]

er ... no

did you read the italics?

yes I read the italics and I still think Ron Hubbard was a bullshit artist appealing to Xenu as authority as do all bullshit arts/Prophets.

wisdom is but one opulence that can establish authority

IOW they said "look at how brainy I am so shut up and listen to me"
:shrug:

And that's the whole point. You CAN say :shrug: BUT for Prophets you can not (or if you do they have your head cut off and people cut said head off because it's not what the "Prophet" wants but what the Gods want [or Alien]).


Do you agree that all monotheistic prophets appeal to authority?

 

[Michael]

You know LG, maybe you need to take a read of what the fallacy actually is because you seem to be way over in left field.

Appeal to authority

Argument from Authority

'Argument from Authority is an informal logical fallacy, formally known as argumentum ad verecundium, where a participant argues that a belief is correct because the person making the argument is an authority. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:

1. Person A claims P
2. Person A is a respected scientist or other authority
3. Therefore, P is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant.

 

[Michael]

An (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something positive about A,
3. therefore claim B is true.

The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.

Arguments that (fallaciously) rely on the objectionable aspects of the source for the truth (usually falsity) of the conclusion are described as ad hominem arguments.

 

[lightgigantic]

yes I read the italics and I still think Ron Hubbard was a bullshit artist appealing to Xenu as authority as do all bullshit arts/Prophets.

maybe we're not on the same page

I didn't see any mention of the qualities of people who accept such persons (ie I don't know what you were reading to come up with "gullible")

nor did I see any mention of your suggested outright malicious intent of the person ( in fact I read mention of quite the opposite actually)

And that's the whole point. You CAN say :shrug: BUT for Prophets you can not (or if you do they have your head cut off and people cut said head off because it's not what the "Prophet" wants but what the Gods want [or Alien]).

How many people have been decapitated in the name of scientology?

(it's quite clear you are a victim of sensationalism)

Do you agree that all monotheistic prophets appeal to authority?

and car mechanics, scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc etc

Infact anyone who can lay cause to being in possession of some discipline or specialized knowledge.

If you don't have the knowledge of a doctor/lawyer/car mechanic/etc and have ever followed the advice of one you do too
:shrug:

 

[Michael]

lightgigantic,

You seem to be stuck here. I understand the concept of hasty generalization which is why if you go WAY back to the beginning to predicated the OP on the notion THERE ARE NO GODS.

So, once that's assumed then we talk about how Prophets "Appeal to Authority" by PRETENDING there are. I thought the conversation about Xenu would make that point because most likely you don't believe in Xenu (although Xenu is the same as God)

M

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic,

You seem to be stuck here. I understand the concept of hasty generalization which is why if you go WAY back to the beginning to predicated the OP on the notion THERE ARE NO GODS.

which is why the whole discussion topic kind of rings like discussing the flying abilities of horses (once one accepts that all pigs can fly and all horses are pigs)

So, once that's assumed then we talk about how Prophets "Appeal to Authority" by PRETENDING there are. I thought the conversation about Xenu would make that point because most likely you don't believe in Xenu (although Xenu is the same as God)

kind of like discussing how the architecture of housing roofs during medieval times was designed to accommodate the excesses or airborne horse and pig poo (due to higher concentrations of horse populations and the fact that pig populations are nowadays largely housed in enclosed factory farms that prevent them flying around so much of course) ...
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

as a side point, have you never encountered the instructions of a "prophet" on how one can also attain a state like theirs?
(IOW have you ever encountered a normative description in scripture, or the outline of something do-able)?

 

[Michael]

which is why the whole discussion topic kind of rings like discussing the flying abilities of horses (once one accepts that all pigs can fly and all horses are pigs

Is it possible to talk about FSM or IPU without assuming they are PRETEND? I don't think it is possible to do so AND have a rational conversation.

When we talk abotu FSM or IPU we of course know these are made up.

MOST of us can say the same about Xenu.

MOST of us can say the same about Minatogawa (a God I prayed to for fun once).

A few of us can say the same about ALLA, YWHA, ZEUS and all the others...




OK, listen here

Do you agree with the following statement:

IF the "Last" Prophet Bobby Henderson says FSM says this or that, THEN Bobby Henderson (PBUH) is appealing to authority.



MII

 

[Michael]

as a side point, have you never encountered the instructions of a "prophet" on how one can also attain a state like theirs?
(IOW have you ever encountered a normative description in scripture, or the outline of something do-able)?

The only instructions I encountered were Buddhist and he wasn't a Prophet.

It is possible meditative instructions could be valid and be passed down masked in a religious envelop? Sure.

 

[lightgigantic]

Just a bit of background briefing on the whole argument from authority thing.

Ipse dixit (he himself has said it), is a latin phrase. It came as a traditional response from the disciples of a Greek sage whenever an opponent challenged them . The problem with ipse dixit proof is that its evidence lies only in words. And (as sci so generously illustrates) words alone don't prove anything. Thus a revolution in greek philosophy cast long shadows on the authority behind the whole Ipse dixit thing



A parallel is drawn with scientific claims. Most scientific theories are simply believed without verifying their truth. Scientists are granted testimonial authority over our lives (along side with many car mechanics, doctors, lawyers, etc) and not just theoretical authority. Theoretical authority means I may accept what you say, I may not. But testimonial authority means “real facts” and that I ought to take it seriously if I want knowledge.

Since the outright rejection of all Ipse dixit claims is absurd, J. Wilson (in “Language and Pursuit of Truth”) suggests three means to determine the validity of such claims

1) Know what the statement means;
2) Know the right way to verify it;
3) Have good evidence for believing it.

With my talks of high school drop outs vs Physics professors in the case of electrons, I assume you can catch the drift of the first two points.

I guess it gets kind of interesting when we get to the third point, since atheists tend to staunchly stand over that it’s all merely words with no evidence. This is because they fall short of the demands of the second point.

Mere Ipse dixit words do not have the potency to free the self from the vicious demands of the mind and senses. Theistic application that is understood and verified as per the two previous rules transforms the hearer in a way that ipse dixit sound does not.

Or to state more bluntly, there is a claim of another world (another world that makes this world appear like a shadow). How do you propose that one evidence it by remaining in the “applications” of the world of shadows and totally neglecting testimonial authority?

 

[lightgigantic]

The only instructions I encountered were Buddhist and he wasn't a Prophet.

It is possible meditative instructions could be valid and be passed down masked in a religious envelop? Sure.

another cause for the requirement for testimonial authority