tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post5155088206696180763..comments2023-10-15T08:15:46.205-04:00Comments on Mike's Eyes (Spotted By): "Scientific Authority" an Anti-ConceptMichael Neibelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-57655521576392081072008-01-24T18:47:00.000-05:002008-01-24T18:47:00.000-05:00Burgess and Anon:You are both right in claiming th...Burgess and Anon:<BR/><BR/>You are both right in claiming that 'scientific authority' can have a valid meaning. I agree completely with that. In fact, I alluded to that point in one sentence which read: "A scientist can be an authority in a given field." I can see now I should have elaborated on this point in the clearer way both of you have. One sentence was not sufficient.<BR/><BR/>What my post objects to is the use of that term when applied to science itself and to scientific papers and documents. I object to media and politicians referring to the IPCC's Assessment Reports and Summeries for Policymakers as the most authoritative science on the subject of global warming for example. Used this way authoritative becomes a nudge word which says in effect "Don't question these findings since they are 'authoritative'. <BR/><BR/>I think Anon was right that the term can be misapplied because I certainly think it is today. referring to the IPCC as 'authoritative' while referring to the criticisms of a Richard Lindzen as 'skepticism' is certainly not my idea of valid usage. <BR/><BR/>I do think Burgess, that you may be right that this could be a qualified instance of an anti-concept. Authoritative is an adjective after all and valid when applied to actual expert scientists, but invalid when applied to documents or findings in my judgement. I'll have to give this more thought.<BR/>Thanks for the input. Both of you.Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-50258391989097642442008-01-24T11:48:00.000-05:002008-01-24T11:48:00.000-05:001. I would also like to suggest--in the hope of be...1. I would also like to suggest--in the hope of being corrected if I'm wrong--that "scientific authority" is not, strictly speaking, a concept, valid or invalid. <BR/><BR/>"Scientific authority," as I have heard it generally used, is a <I>qualified-instance</I> of a concept. (Rand, ITOE, pp. 23, 71, and 177.) Note the list of example anti-concepts which Dr. Binswanger adds to the end of the "Anti-Concepts" article in <I>The Ayn Rand Lexicon</I>, p. 24. Is it a coincidence that they are all single words?<BR/><BR/>(It may be true, as an epistemological <I>description</I>, that in some cases specialists use two or more words to represent what actually is a concept in their minds. That is a failure of nomenclature, not a license for abandoning the epistemological <I>prescription</I> of one concept, one word.)<BR/><BR/>2. What I take to be Mike's payoff point is correct. Mike is saying that, while advocating anti-business laws, at least some environmentalists (and certainly the Environmentalists, as religionists) <I>do</I> sometimes appeal to the authority of scientists whose conclusions they agree with as being <I>intrinsically</I> correct on issues that seemingly support environmentalism. (Of course, law does not objectively stand on specialized sciences but on political principles which in turn stand on moral principles.)<BR/><BR/>Mike is right to warn of this point. The same environmentalists who laud "scientific authority" on one issue reveal their corruption when they reject legitimate scientific authorities who say nuclear power plants, properly designed, are safe.Burgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-51303223879071498382008-01-24T11:00:00.000-05:002008-01-24T11:00:00.000-05:00I don't see any anti-concept here. As Burgess poin...I don't see any anti-concept here. As Burgess points out, there is a completely legitimate usage of "scientific authority." <BR/><BR/>"Authority" is not just a political concept. It can refer to a special kind of expertise: the kind of expert whose testimony we are justified in believing, because he has established a public track record of reliability.<BR/><BR/>Since nobody can be an expert on everything, we need authorities to guide our decision making on dozens of subjects. I have no serious knowledge of medicine, so I go to a doctor. If I have reason to trust the doctor has credentials and his explanations make sense, I'm justified in believing that his diagnosis is sound. <BR/><BR/>The same is true for questions of science. If a scientist has an established track record and he can explain his case logically to me, I will tend to believe him, and I'll appeal to scientific authorities on questions I don't have special knowledge about. <BR/><BR/>There is a difference between fake and genuine authority. Introductory logic classes usually make the distinction this way: appealing to the first is committing the fallacy of the appeal to *irrelevant* authority. But appealing to relevant authority is not a fallacy. It's relying on reliable testimony, which we can't do without. <BR/><BR/>So the problem with "scientific authority" is not that is an inherently invalid concept. It's that it's often misapplied to authorities who are not genuine. <BR/><BR/>NSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-71419292272403544312008-01-24T09:15:00.000-05:002008-01-24T09:15:00.000-05:00I fully agree with your overall description--and a...I fully agree with your overall description--and a very articulate one--of the nature of science. I would like to suggest caution, however. Not every instance of the use of the <I>words</I> "scientific authority" name an idea which is a package deal. <BR/><BR/>The words "scientific authority" can name another, <I>valid</I> idea: A particular scientist who has a proven track record in his field and is trusted by other reliable sources for his conclusions, in general. <BR/><BR/>In a criminal trial, a particular scientist can be an "authority" on DNA, for example. That doesn't mean he is claiming his own special facts. It is simply a recognition of his reputation for having enough competence to state generally trustworthy conclusions, especially to laymen. <BR/><BR/>In this sense, an "authority" is one who has the knowledge to "author" a conclusion worthy of serious consideration and respect, in the absence of contrary testimony.<BR/><BR/>(The concept "expert" is related but not the same; I use the term to name this idea: someone who knows (1) the general points of every department of his field, <I>and</I> (2) the fundamental principles of his field. Those requirements are onerous. That is why there are very few experts, and the ones who have that status properly are usually very specialized.)Burgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.com