Arguments of (Appeals to)Authority Are Weird
Arguments of authority are weird as shit to me…
They’re like: “Sure, what you’re saying could make sense… but did someone or something WITH AUTHORITY ALSO SAY what you’re saying? If not, then who told you you’re allowed to think, investigate or speak on this or any subject? Until someone with authority [that I’m willing to recognize] says it first, you need to be quiet for fear of incurring my wrath, judgment and contempt!”
Like all logics fallacies, arguments of authority are basically ploys to silence opposition by, with or through disqualification…
Logics fallacies are weak and cowardly. Instead of engaging, considering, weighting, organizing and responding to information, ideas and events in real time, logics fallacies are attempts to beat opposition without effectively engaging the subjects being discussed.
They’re basically saying: “If I can prove that either you or your argument isn’t worth considering, then I don’t have to make a case for why my views and beliefs are correct.”
What makes arguments of authority weird as shit though is that they’re paradoxical. They imply one of two things:
1. That authority is omniscient, meaning authority (and/or individuals, ideas and informations that represent it) knows everything that can be known, including but not limited to the best and most accurate ways for mining and organizing discovery…
and
2. That authority is automatically right, and that anyone who thinks, investigates or speaks without recognizing authority first must automatically be wrong.
The main problem with this approach to reasoning is that ultimately suggests authority has already reached the pinnacle of learning; meaning religion/faith (matters of spiritual concern), science, technology, academia and philosophy must necessarily come to a screeching halt in the present, so that future discovery and presenters/procurers of discovery can avoid conflicting with what’s taken on authority now.
Furthermore, it suggests that understanding, and mental talent, capability and vision are necessarily properties belonging to convention and/or social institutions, and adepts beholden to them. Ironically, visionaries are rarely if ever products of institutional thinking and thought paths. That’s just not the way it’s played out through history…
Look here…
It is mechanically impossible to ‘be right’ and reasonable at the same time. You’re either trying to gain understanding for things or trying to be and prove to others that you’re right. To defend and stand on or by authority is by default making an assumption of correctness — of ’rightness’, whereas legitimately reasoning is working to gain understanding for things, absent the weight of belief, in real time.
Simply put, if authority is always right, then there’s no room for growth, or future discovery and adjustment.
So the next time anyone comes to you with: “Find me a study that supports what your argument!”, or “Find me a Bible verse that supports your claim!” what they’re technically saying is: “Source your argument and view to some local, contemporary and limited way of understanding, which does not perform above, beyond or in spite of institutional authority! Limit your reasoning capability to the local fare!”
It’s fundamentally no different than saying: “We speak English in this country!”
It’s like telling a 5-Star Mexican chef that until he/she can make/reproduce TGIFriday’s old menu, his/her skills are nonexistent…
If you think in this way, then it means that when and where authority is limited, you are limited; and when and where authority is wrong, you are wrong.