When is an argument from authority valid?

[Ben]

FWIW, I’m starting this thread in order to resolve some differences between the posting styles of myself and Danielinthewolvesden, but I’m creating a new thread in the spirit of old discussions on (for example) whether it’s fair to link to a site in order to prove your point.

Daniel has, now and in the past, supported a number of his arguments about Biblical archaeology by pointing out that Isaac Asimov agrees with him in Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, and in general has made appeals to authority in which the authorities in question were popularizations rather than the primary literature. My objection to this is twofold:

1. Asimov is not an appropriate authority- he is a respected public personage, but his opinions on Biblical archaeology are no more authoritative than those of (for example) Daniel himself or of the folks at http://www.infidels.org. Daniel, what would your response be if I told you that Farrell Till disagrees with your opinions on Biblical archaeology? You may well have studied Biblical archaeology more than Asimov. Should I be expected to take your word for it?

2. Merely recording someone’s agreement or disagreement with you is not very educational. Ideally, it would be nice (perhaps necessary as well) to know the evidence upon which the experts based their opinions. So if I were in a debate on creation vs. evolution, instead of saying “Kimura says that evolution is right” I would instead feel obligated to explain how the genetic evidence supports evolution.

As further support of my opinion, I would like to add a quote from:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.htm

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:

i. the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,

ii. experts in the field disagree on this issue.
iii.the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

I would suggest that Daniel’s arguments in general fall afoul of #2 most certainly (because he has been presented with quotes from experts who disagree with him and Asimov) and #1 most likely (because Asimov is not a professional in the field of Biblical Archaeology.)

I suspect that Asimov’s knowledge of Biblical archaeology might be roughly similar to that of Philip Johnson’s knowledge of evolution. If I’m not mistaken, both wrote popular books on a particular subject without researching the primary literature. Ergo, both popularizations (Asimov’s guide and Darwin on Trial) could be considered “tertiary” sources. Daniel, if Asimov cites the primary literature in his guide, let me know.

So, does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Specifically:

1. To what extent is a person obligated to explain the rationale behind expert opinion?

2. What constitutes an appropriate level of expertise before someone can be considered an authority?

-Ben

[Opus1]

Since Danielinthewolvesden used Asimov against me more than once, I thought I should jump in on this.

First of all, with regard to the specific “authority” in question, I picked up Asimov’s Guide to the Bible while doing some research at my college library. I only gave it a brief scan, but I’m pretty sure it didn’t have a bibliography or index! Thus, all of Asimov’s facts were unsupported. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

Ben wrote:

1. To what extent is a person obligated to explain the rationale behind expert opinion?

An expert is required to provide support for his/her claims to the extent that I can understand them. If something is way too complicated for a non-expert to understand, then we pretty much have to take his/her word for it.

2. What constitutes an appropriate level of expertise before someone can be considered an authority?

[/quote]

For most scientific or scholarly endeavours, it’s publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals. For example, wrt evolution, Johnson, Behe, Gish, etc. never publish their material in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, creationists never publish their arguments in peer-reviewed journals, although a successful refutation of evolution would almost certainly result in (at least one) Nobel prize.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Well, from a standpoint of formal logic it is never “valid”.

From a standpoint of practical rhetoric, “valid” is a meaningless term. Argument from athority can be effective when the target audience respects the authority enough to lend particular credence to his views on the subject under discussion.

Ben, the rules you listed are interesting, but rarely does one find a subject of debate in which the parties don’t think the “experts in the field disagree on this issue.” Often, (eg C/E), this comes down to the definition of “expert”. This, in fact, seems the crux of your disargeement with Danielwithtooloknganame.

Opus has given some fine guidelines from the scientific perspective, but not all arguments concern questions of science and not all parties in an argument necessarily feel the scientific perspective is the most valuable one to bring to bear. Questions of ethics, morals, metaphysics, etc. come to mind. When arguing morality, one might cite any number of respected “experts” whose teachings were never subject to a scientific peer review.

Basically, this is a long way of saying that appeal to authority is effective if the other guy accepts it. If he doesn’t, it isn’t. Once you say, “hey, Asimov’s words aren’t good enough,” the appeal to his authority is useless.

Against you, that is.

In this forum, changing the mind of one’s “opponent” is rarely the sole goal, if it is a goal at all. Daniel may well feel that Asimov’s authority will sway others reading the thread(s), and so he keeps appealing to it.

Is it valid? No.
Is it effective? Not on me, but I am continually amazed by the arguments that some people find persuasive.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Well, when one is asked for a cite- then a cite is given. Yes, an 'authority" (except Cecil, of course) is not the end of an arguement- but it can be used to back up a FACT in a debate-but not an OPINION. Just because Asimov says so- does not make it so. Asimov has a couple of advantages- he is mostly unbiased- his book is written without an axe to grind. He is easy to read. And, he very rarely comes up with anything on his own- most of the info in “his” book is from the Anchor Bible- possibly the most respected biblical source out there. However, it is one large, thick volume per book of the Bible (ie it is the size of a large set of encyclopedias), and very dense reading. Buying a set is very, very pricey. However, if somebody let me know that the Anchor Bible disagreed with Asimov- i would certainly accept the Anchor Bible 1st. Is he the best source, or even a great source? Hardly. But- if one asks for a cite- then I can give you a cite form his book quickly.

I also use Kenneth Davis- “Don’t Know Much About the Bible”, and the Oxford guide to Biblical history. The Oxford guide is perhaps the most recognized, but Davis makes good reading. Both are unbiased, also. Finally, I also use “Baffling Bible Questions Answered”- which is not bad- but it is quite biased. Thus, I tend not to cite it.

The best sources are such publications as “Biblical Archeologu Review”. The worst are those such as “infidels”- which are so biased to be worthless (altho note, they can lead to some good sources).

Now, if someone askes me to back up a historical fact from the Bible, and I quote Asimov- well, you asked for a cite, and i gave you a legit, respected, unbiased cite. However, if you had a cite from the Anchor Bible, or Biblical Archeology Review- i would certainly accept them as BETTER sources. If you do not think Asimov is a very good source- then refute him with a better one. But, I reserve the right to dismiss any biased sites.

But- even if I came up with a cite from Biblical Archeology Review, and the Anchor Bible, plus Oxford even- you do not have to accept that- especially if the cite is more of an opinion. Thus, a arguement PURELY from 'authority" is not the best, especially when argueing OPINIONS rather than facts. But, when you request and ask for an “authority”, and I come up with one (that is unbiased)- then you can’t just say “I don’t accept THAT authority”- <how many recounts do you want? > Then, you must counter my authority with one of yours- also as unbiased.

When argueing which Mountain is the highest- i can hardly say that “Asimov says it is Everest. and that’s that”- THAT is what they mean by “argueing from authority”. But if I quote him as the the height in feet of said mountain- then that is NOT 'argueing from authority"- that is ‘quoteing a source’- used all the time in debates, and completely acceptable. You could counter that Mt Titicaca is higher, as it’s peak is the farthest from Earths core, or that Mauna Loa is the highest as it it the farthest from its base- and then we have a “debate”. And I would ask you to give a cite as the the ht of your mountains, and that cite would, again, NOT be “argueing from authority”. But, if you said Professor Numnuts of the Geology dept at Yale said it was Mauna Loa- THAT would be 'argueing from authority". OK, got it? A cite for the purpose of establishing a FACT is Ok, but not for strengthing an OPINION.