How to Investigate the Truth (fact checking the fact-checkers)

submitted by zyxzevn from (self.Solutions)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StrategicTactic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

As you recently linked this, I am not considering this a necro.

There are many fallacies that should be avoided, and indeed the appeal to authority is one fallacy, but I do not believe you have given it a fair representation here. It is fair and valid to appeal to an authority, but it becomes a fallacy when that authority is not recognized by all. For instance, we can use the works of an author as an authoritative source on what that author means/intends, as we can all recognize that each person is the authority on themselves. We can often use some of your very examples "Scientists say..."- but only when all can recognize such as a valid authority. When the authority is in question, it then becomes a fallacy to refer to it.

For example: If I were to refer to a specific religious text in a discussion, say the New King James Bible in a discussion with Christians, it would not necessarily be an authority fallacy. Now if I refer to that same text in a religious discussion with Buddists, since they do not recognize the text as authoritative, it would be a fallacy.

Edit: One other important note is that science is never settled, and consensus is not science. Something like "The science shows/says" is only explaining some people's current understanding, not necessarily the truth of the matter or showing evidence.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Good points.

"Authorities that are recognized by all", can give a good starting point for a discussion.

If you substitute "authority that is recognized by all" as "truth", you kind of replace the authority fallacy with group bias.
So instead of the "truth" you get a "generally accepted truth". Which may still be completely wrong.
My experience is that many "experts" are also very biased. And this bias should be taken in consideration.
And indeed, science is never settled.

I usually use the same arguments for things that are clearly not universally accepted. That way a fallacy pops out quickly.
Like who is the authority on Christianity?
Is a pope the best authority for Christianity? Or historians? Or people that (think they) channel Jesus?
And does that even matter now?
Yet, in the middle ages you could get killed for having the wrong ideas.

I also notice that people misinterpret authorities to make complete weird claims.
For example, based on Einstein's relativity of gravity, gravity is equal to acceleration.
And therefore, some flat-earthers claim that the earth's surface must accelerating.
Which they claim can only happen if it is flat.

But also good scientists misinterpret authorities to make weird claims.
Alfphen warned astronomers not to misuse his formulas when receiving his Nobel prize.
Astronomers falsely removed the electric fields from the equations, which made them much simpler.
And applied them in many cases.
This gave the rise to the theory of "magnetic reconnection", where magnetic field lines
do exist and can even collied with each other. The NASA still uses this theory for the Sun.
And yet magnetic fields are continuous and do not have lines.
There is more behind that idea, but it shows how correct ideas can become completely weird.

[–]StrategicTactic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with your points here. Just wanted to clarify "recognized by all" was meaning "all of those in the conversation/debate", since as you indicated a general "all" would have group bias. Since those looking at a paper may not all recognize certain authorities, there can be some challenges there.

In general I find debating a paper or specific evidence to be rather exhausting just for those reasons, and much prefer debating a specific person on their viewpoint. Even if I do not convince them on a subject, they can pose direct challenges where they do not recognize figures that I do, and the reverse. A perfect example is in political debate where people quote Fox news and CNN to each other, neither recognizing that they have both committed the appeal to authority fallacy.