Argument of authority

One names Argument of authority the fact of replacing a reasoning by a reference to the conclusions of a person evoked like authority on a subject.

It seems a priori licit and even healthy , when one expresses oneself on a subject, knowledge with any chance what think of the specialists. Let us quote the joke of Bertrand Russell:

  • “When the experts are unanimous, the opposite opinion can be regarded as certain”
  • “When the experts do not agree, no opinion cannot be regarded as certain”
  • “When the experts are perplexed, the non-specialist will be undoubtedly quite advised to suspend its judgment”

The question of the authority is elsewhere: it not consists in using the specialist as spokesperson in the fact that one could have said oneself, but to make use simply of sound name to try to escape from a polemic, or an awkward conclusion. However:

  • It should initially be known if the specialist is well in the field considered (an expert in mathematics can appear poor expert in archeology, as the business of the mathematician Michel Chasles with the forger Vrain-Lucas showed it).

  • It also should be known if its opinion is emitted with personal capacity, assumption, or like quasi-certainty resulting from precise work. It is also necessary to make sure of what its pars think, to locate the position in question (even if it is not, in the scientific discipline, the preference of the majority which establishes what is true or not).
  • Lastly, and it is the most important point there, it should be made sure that one has included/understood well what the specialist wanted to say that one quotes, and whose one a little quickly interprets sometimes the terms.

Thus, Stephen Jay Gould had emitted an observation on the fact that the theory of the evolution stated by Charles Darwin incomplete and that we were undoubtedly still missed some elements. One saw magazines in sensational evil then to titrate: “Stephen Jay Gould blames the theory of Darwin”.

In the same way, Einstein affirmed that God does not play dice . He would be at the very least abusive to shelter behind this authority to affirm that the chance does not exist or that God exists. Especially when it is known that referred only to one very technical question of quantum Mécanique, and that in more than this sentence is a truncated extract where Einstein specified well that it was only about one personal conviction (and not the result of its work).

Historical prospect

The argument of authority was one of the major tools of regulation of the city and the State before the Age of Enlightenment. The Prince, starting from the religious texts, dictated the law and judged the men. The things were “simple. ” One had or not freedom, the equality or fraternity.

The 18th century, in particular through the Encyclopedia of Diderot and D' Alembert proposed the role of the reason and the necessary complexity of its application to the human businesses, the Pragmata. Does an argument of the reason obey the categories of Quintilien - Quis, quid, ubi, quando, cur, quibus auxiliis, quomodo? : Who? What? Where? When? Why (for which cause? in which goal?) ? By which means? How? - or, to simplify, exposes the fact, the author of the fact and the context of action or elocution.

But all that requires an effort and it is so much faster to replace the complex reason by the “simple” authority of the fact, the person or the context.

  • “That was decided in Brussels! ” By which? With which aiming?
  • “It is recognized in the science…” By which? For which type of science? At which time of science?
  • “Descartes said…” With which carefully phrased remarks?

This “authority of the least effort”, this mechanics of the weak references presented as strong is much more pernicious than the authority of the traditional Age. In these remote times, the citizen, in the most current cases of the life, could “with which saint dedicate himself”. Not that these times were righter than today but they were less complex.

If we want to escape the “mechanical” arguments of authority, “simplistic”, it is necessary for us to work on the complexity of nature and the men.

Arguments of authority and sources encyclopedic

The abuse the systematic referencing of any point presented in an encyclopedic article, without being delayed too much on the relevance of the source, can lead to replace the demonstrations by arguments of authority. In addition to the temptation of a élitiste drift, the risk is that a blunder or a referred lie can give to the reader the impression of a certainty. In the extreme cases, this practice, if it is voluntary and unduly exploits the tacit guarantee which brings conventions of sourçage of the encyclopedia, can be connected with a handling arising from the techniques of Propagande.

Free examination

The principle of the Libre examination which preaches in all matters a reflection free and independent of all Préjugé, Dogme or Tabou opposes de facto to the argument authority.

See too

Internal bonds

Zh-yue: 訴諸權威

Random links:Helene Carrère d' Encausse | Green sun (film) | Export of posting by SSH | Azouth | Adolf Stern | BASIC_minuscule