With
the introduction of industrialization to society, we have become
nations of specialists. No longer are we generalists whose sole task is
survival. We have become niche workers in specialized fields. The more
demanding the position, the more training and experience required.
A person today can not spend all the necessary time to train and to be expert in every field and in every
sub-discipline of that field. Science
would have died after its first practitioners, and the extant of
society would be forever configured into small tribal units – eking a
subsistence in caves and at the whim of migrating animals. There would
be no transcendent knowledge base from one generation to the next.
Therefore, we must rely on experts, to determine what the facts are and how those facts describe the world around us.
Defined
This fallacy is very similar to
last weeks fallacy,
instead of appealing to majority opinion, the appeal is either made to
what an expert or a perceived authority feels, or a group as
justification for a belief. Citing a person's belief
as evidence is evidence of that person's belief, not that the belief
itself is valid.
There are other varieties of this fallacy, but I am including the ones that are most relevant to the discussions at lcl.
Examples
- Einstein believed in God. Are you smarter than Einstein?
- A majority of democrats voted to authorize Bush to go to war with Iraq. Therefore, the war is justified.
Example 1: This is a
non-sequitar. Einstein did not believe in God. In a letter to a philosopher Eric Gutkind (recently auctioned)
Einstein reveals "the
word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of
human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
If you want to use Einstein as an expert for belief in god - that is fine by me.
Regardless
of Einstein's beliefs, belief in God is justified only by the evidence.
You've only demonstrated what someone else may or may not believe, not
that the belief itself has any merit.
Example 2: This argument is deployed as a post hoc
rationalization for the war in Iraq. While it
is true that there was significant bipartisan support in Congress, that
does not substitute for positive and explicit evidence for invasion.
As we all know, the evidence was never found. It's complete absence, is
conclusive evidence that such an absence of WMD did not exist according
to the explicit allegations made.
In Conclusion
While
it is true that we must rely on the testimony of experts, the truth of a
claim does not end with that expert alone. Facts on the ground can
change and that is why any theory must remain falsifiable to have any value at all.
Otherwise, we succumb to dogma and doctrine.