Critical Thinking and Pandemics III: Argument of the Authority
When you accept a claim based on a source (supposed) specialization, you are using the authority’s argument. Its availability is a fairly weak argument. Because you have no evidence for the claim, you are based on the source to be accurate and honest. Despite its own weakness in this argument, a real expert is worse than the wrong claim within their area of specialization. While the argument is usually informally presented, it has the following structure:
1. Premise: A (claimed) is the authority over the semendency.
2. Premise: The AK claims about S subject.
Conclusion: So C claim C is true.
As an informal example, when you believe your doctor or HVAC technician claims, you are using the argument of the authority. But how do you know when an alleged authority is really expert? Fortunately, there are little or nothing you know about the claim you can use standards. To the extent that the argument complies with standards, it makes sense to accept the conclusion. If the argument does not meet the standards, it would be a fade (a mistake in logic) to accept the conclusion. Excluding conclusion would also be trivial that the appeal of the authority fell. The bad reasoning is because it can have a true conclusion; Rather, as someone can guess the correct answer to a math problem. Here are the rules for evaluation.
First, the person must have enough specialization around the subject. It is determined by a person’s experience of education (formal and otherwise), experience, achievements, reputation and position. These should be carefully evaluated considering they establish experts. For example, a person could be the head of a government agency because of family connections or political loyalty, rather than ability or knowledge. The required level of expertise also varies with context. For example, someone who has completed university biology courses could be an expert when the virus repeats that the virus repeats in living things, abducting the mechanism of cells. But some university courses in Biology would not be experts in Epidemiology.
Second, the claim must be in the area of the person’s specialization. Specialization in an area does not automatically provide skill in another. For example, being a world-renowned physicist does not automatically expert in a person in morality or politics. Unfortunately, it is often forgotten or deliberately discarded. Actors and musicians, for example, are often experts in addition to their artistic specialization. Billionaires are also often considered, having richness involves extensive specialization. This does not mean that the claims outside their area are false, lacking the experience of providing good reasons for accepting claim.
The third must be the right level of consensus between other experts. If there is no appropriate deal, it would be to attract debatiful experts. That is, any claim by an expert will be a claim made by another qualified expert. In these cases, the authorities would be attractive.
That said, it does not have any area of the entire agreement, so some kind of conflict is acceptable when using this argument. How acceptable is the discussion account, but most of the views of qualified experts is rational. While they had the opportunity to be wrong, it is likely to be right. Although there is extensive consensus, experts often agree to agree to agree that agree. This is not a good reason; Being agreeing with an expert is not a logical reason to believe that they are right.
The fourth, the expert does not have to twist significantly. Examples of mischievous factors are financial gain, political ideology, sexism and racism. The credibility of a person is reduced to twisted degree. When everyone has biases, the problem becomes a problem when the bias can affect the person. For example, a physician owned by a company that produces anti-viral medication could be twisted in making claims about medication efficiency. But while the Bias is a problem, a mistake would also be excluding a person’s claim for the alleged bias. After all, a person can face their naughters and a twisted person may reason. Along with anti-viral examples, discarding the doctor’s claim, because they would be false of the ad. Although unfair experts may be wrong, unparalleled experts are more credible for other factors equal to both experts.
The fifth, the field of specialization must be legitimate in the field or discipline. Although it is counted as a legitimate area, there are clear cases. For example, if someone claims to be expert in magical crystals and recommends using the magical Quartz to remove the Ebola, then it would not be reasonable to accept his claim. In contrast, epidemiology is a legitimate area.
Sixth, authority must be identified. If a person says a claim based on an anonymous expert, there is no way to whether this person is a real expert. This does not think that false claim (otherwise thought it would be trivial), but without the ability to evaluate unnamed expert, you have no credibility. In such cases, the suspension of the verdict can be a rational choice. As expected, unnamed experts are often used in social networks and is wise to know more about them. It is also nutritious, meaningfully false; For example, someone is circulating false claims and attributes to a credible expert.
Eventually, the expert must be honest and reliable. Being honest means what a person is saying think It’s true, it doesn’t follow the correct. But an honest expert is more credible than a source that honestly tends to honestly. But to conclude an honest source require The wrong would also be a mistake. After all, an honest source could be fine while believing that they are lying at this time.
While these rules are submitted to the evaluation of individuals, they apply to organizations and groups. The truth of individuals is, you should update the evaluations of groups that change over time. For example, the federal agency that experts had experts and experts would be reliable; But if this agency was bent and his personal was replaced with political loyalists, then the authority was lacking.
