Talk:Argument from authority/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Example section is using bad examples.

Unfortunately, we can't list things as examples simply because we personally think they represent an argument-from-authority fallacy; doing so would be original research. Anything listed in the examples section needs a source explicitly using the term "argument from authority" somewhere (or words that clearly mean the same thing) in order to be listed. In particular, I'm not seeing any sources on the chromosome example that describe anyone involved as relying on an argument from authority; and reading over it, I don't think it is an example (when a genuine authority is wrong -- that is, when someone who could legitimately be expected to be an expert on something makes a mistake -- it's not an example of an appeal-to-authority fallacy.) It doesn't belong in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources do use terms that mean the same thing. This source for example says "we did not follow the scientific paradigm when we put our trust in an authority (Painter)". This source discusses a scientist reporting the wrong count of 48 when that isn't the count he had got because Painter's reputation was behind 48. It says:

“The colchicine-hypotonic method seemed like a miracle to Hsu, and so he set out to examine the human chromosomes in new detail. He struggled to confirm 48 chromosomes in his material-after all, Painter was a respected cytologist and president of the University of Texas, where Hsu had gotten his Ph.D. In the end he had to 'force' a count of 48…”

And this source talks about how "Painter had got it wrong, but his influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence". One of the sources it cites, found online here, says "Painter had blundered - but worse than that, other scientists had preferred to bow to authority rather than believe the evidence of their own eyes". Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You haven't responded to Aquillion's point. He's pointing out that no-one says it was a fallacy, not that no-one says it was a mistake. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

To say an argument from authority was mistaken because trusting authorities over evidence is wrong is to say that the argument was mistaken because of its inherent construction. That is saying that it is fallacious. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH. Oh, and uh... This 'over evidence' thing that you keep asserting has only been hinted at one time. Even then, it does not state clearly that the evidence showed a number that was not 48, but that the count had to be forced. The possibility that the number shown by the evidence was unclear is not addressed. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources say it clearly so it is not synthesis. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, just quote the sentence that uses the word 'Fallacy' and be done with it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The word "fallacy" means "the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning...in the construction of an argument". A source that says an argument's very construction is faulty is saying it is a fallacy. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please quote the sentence that says anything about the "construction of the argument". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This source, on page 40 directly says that this is an example of an argument from authority in a section on why these arguments are inherently a bad idea to trust. It says “Let us consider an example of authority-driven theorizing from another rather more certain field…In 1923, the eminent American zoologist Theophilus Painter pronounced that there were 24 pairs. This authoritative conclusion was repeated in textbooks over the next 30 years alongside photographs clearly showing (had anyone bothered to count) only 23 pairs. The power of argument from authority, the power of routine 'givens', and the influence of peer-group pressure are all revealed in this case…Social psychological experiments have long confirmed this tendency to accept ideas and proposals from apparent consensus and from authority, and to ignore disconcerting, even commonsense, evidence". Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between psychology and philosophy? I mean, I'd have taken a biologist, but a psychologist? Writing about good practices for social workers? This isn't any better than FLoA's martial artist. It certainly doesn't help that in the very next paragraph the authors vastly mischaracterize Schiaparelli's reasons for identifying the 'canals' on Mars, and imply (completely falsely) that Mars lacks polar ice caps. Also, there were a lot of astronomers finding canals on Mars, it wasn't just Schiaparelli. And of course, this wasn't an example of an appeal to authority, either. A number of astronomers disputed the claim of canals on Mars. And of course, H.G. Wells was a science fiction author writing fiction, not a scientist theorizing as this book states. Not to mention that the biologists who wrote about the Painter count all said the plates were unclear at the time, contrary to what this author states. Demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of basic (I'm not a scientist of any bent -or a historian- and I knew these things off the top of my head, though of course I confirmed them) science history doesn't do much to establish one's reliability as a source on science history. To be fair, I think if you wanted to pick a bad source, you could have done worse. Not much worse, but still. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Science textbooks are reliable sources. As we're seeing on the RSN, most everyone is agreeing that sources like these are good. Gamaliel said "The most preferred sources are of course experts in a particular subfield. There is no rule that says these are the only experts which can be cited in a particular article". An IP said "Scientists talking about science...are reliable sources for what's valid scientific evidence". Darouet said "of course you should cite scientists". Another IP said "On science we trust scientists...Include both". So far no one else but Mondegreen has agreed that we shouldn't be citing scientists here. Can you present any policy or precedent that would support your contentions? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that scientists can be used as sources, but am not necessarily giving my support to various proposed changes or examples that might amount to original research or undue weight. I apologize that I don't have more time to get involved right now other than to argue that on general principles scientists have notable and even expert opinions on the philosophy and history of science. -Darouet (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

David Tornheim explicitly agreed with me, and Gamaliel's comment says merely that a source can be reliable in spite of not coming from an expert on the specific subfield of the article - that is not the same thing as saying that these particular sources are reliable for this subject matter.

I also think it deserves note that many people in that discussion only said that they regard the sources as reliable as reports of Sagan et al.'s opinions, which is different from regarding them as reliable sources for taking their claims as fact. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tornheim seemed to be rather neutral. But most relevantly for this section, he said "further reading on the dispute made me more partial to the chromosome example and the possibility of quoting Sagan as a prominent publicly known science figure (even though he is not an expert in logic/philosophy)--just as long as it is a valid example of argument from authority". So in terms of the example he'd be in favor. The main point as far as the chromosome examples goes is that at the RSN every who has voiced an opinion aside from you two is agreeing: scientists are reliable sources for this. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Tornheim seemed to be rather neutral. Sure. That must be why he said "Carl Sagan is NOT an expert in the topic of the article: logic, which is a part of philosophy. ... So I agree with Lord Mondegreen." What better way to express his neutrality than by saying that he agrees with me and that Sagan is not an expert in the relevant field? Lord Mondegreen (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help you resolve your dispute on what I meant. :) Lord Mondegreen is certainly correct that I contend that Sagan is not an expert in logic/philosophy. But I did take a somewhat neutral (or actually undecided) position on whether the 24 chromosome example is appropriate for this article. I am still on the fence. There is no question it is an interesting example of how scientists are just as fallible as everyone else, and I like it because it shows that application of the supposedly infallible scientific method of "proof" hardly guarantees 100% correctness of anything claimed since every scientific claim is made from humans and even the expert scientists are fallible. But the important question is: Is it a GOOD EXAMPLE of the various forms of APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY? Sagan is no more qualified to say so than any of us, because he would be talking outside of his field of expertise. He is qualified to state *facts* about things within his field, such as whether scientists in his field of expertise typically believe X or not, whether they began to change their mind based on new evidence, new reports, etc., and what were the factors that changed their minds. But he is not qualified to articulate what the appeal to authority fallacy is and whether this is a good example of it or not. That is up to philosophers/logicians.

For the 24 chromosome example the proposed text for our article, says there was a problem with confirmation bias, which is different from the appeal to authority fallacy. So it may indeed not be a very good example of appeal to authority. Let me also point out that there are a number of different forms of the appeal to authority fallacy. For those who want to include the 24 chromosome example: Which of the various FORM(s) of Appeal to Authority fallacy are you claiming this example illustrates? For those of you who do not want the example, how would you answer the question?

For me the answer to that question of form is: "infer that the conclusion is certainly correct" / "if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true." Since it fits only one form (and might also be a better example of confirmation bias), I can see why some editors are saying it is WP:undo. But that could be fixed by including more examples for each form of the fallacy. I think we should have more examples as I explained above in a different talk section: I think the article is too technical for lay persons and examples will make it more accessible. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to help out David Tornheim! A neutral outside voice like your’s is what this Talk has desperately needed.

“But the important question is: Is it a GOOD EXAMPLE of the various forms of APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY?”

We have a published textbook that directly says as much. Like Perfect Orange Sphere helpfully presented, here on page 40 says

“that this is an example of an argument from authority in a section on why these arguments are inherently a bad idea to trust. It says ‘Let us consider an example of authority-driven theorizing from another rather more certain field…In 1923, the eminent American zoologist Theophilus Painter pronounced that there were 24 pairs. This authoritative conclusion was repeated in textbooks over the next 30 years alongside photographs clearly showing (had anyone bothered to count) only 23 pairs. The power of argument from authority, the power of routine 'givens', and the influence of peer-group pressure are all revealed in this case…Social psychological experiments have long confirmed this tendency to accept ideas and proposals from apparent consensus and from authority, and to ignore disconcerting, even commonsense, evidence’”.

“[The example] says there was a problem with confirmation bias, which is different from the appeal to authority fallacy”

True, but the main point is that it “continued to be held based on Painter's authority” as it says.

“For those who want to include the 24 chromosome example: Which of the various FORM(s) of Appeal to Authority fallacy are you claiming this example illustrates?”

It was an appeal to authority because it was being claimed that we knew that that was the count because Theophilus Painter said it was – even when contrary evidence kept turning up.

Like this biology journal article, written by one of the scientists who took Painter at his word, says,

I learned, textbooks taught, and I taught that the human chromosome number was 2n = 48. Nobody ever pointed out that [when] Theophilus S. Painter of the University of Texas published this ‘fact’…that it was his best estimate based on counts of numerous human testis cells, and that other counts made by Painter suggested that 2n = 46. As science teachers we did not follow the scientific paradigm when we put our trust in an authority (Painter) and when we elevated a simple (and erroneous) observation to the level of an incontestable truth.

And this book by a biologist talks about how

”The history of chromosome research is another example of how scientific research…can be affected by sociological forces. In 1923, Muller’s eminent colleague Theophilus Painter announced that…he had counted the number of human chromosomes, and there were twenty-four pairs…Painter had got it wrong, but his influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence.”

As this philosophical source says, “If a person says he knows that something is true, then he intends his listener to take what he says as true on his authority. It is not a matter to be questioned…We affirm the right and need to submit any statement or belief to criticism and requisite justification. None are allowed exemption from this ordeal of reason”. Yet this exemption is precisely what the count of 48 chromosomes was given because of who was claiming it. As this chapter discusses, “from 1923 until1955 it was widely agreed by experts that human beings had twenty-four pairs of chromosomes. This was known to be true because a Texan biologist called Theophilus Painter (1889—1969) had counted them under a microscope. Unfortunately, Painter miscounted and no one got around to checking his data for more than thirty years!”

We even have accounts of many scientists getting the correct counts, but then deferring to Painter’s authority and reputation and fudging their data to agree with his. http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/0092-8674%2879%2990249-6.pdf for example says

”“The colchicine-hypotonic method seemed like a miracle to Hsu, and so he set out to examine the human chromosomes in new detail. He struggled to confirm 48 chromosomes in his material-after all, Painter was a respected cytologist and president of the University of Texas, where Hsu had gotten his Ph.D. In the end he had to 'force' a count of 48…”

So, Painter’s work was held to be certainly true because of who he was, to the point that no one challenged or cross-examined his work for decades until advances in microscopic techniques and technology made the error as clear as day. FL or Atlanta (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Any book, no matter the author, no matter what it is used for, which makes such incredibly basic mistakes as that book did in talking about the subject you wish to cite it for is not, under any circumstances, reliable for this use. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You disagreeing with a source doesn't make it non-reliable. The fact that it is a published science textbook means it passes WP:RS. Especially when we're talking a psychology textbook being cited for facts about psychology! Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not me disagreeing with the book. It's reality. Demonstrable, reliably sourced reality. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We aren't arbiters of truth. If a source comes from reliable people and a reliable publisher, and it's reporting something relevant, it can be included. FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Plus the things you describe as errors are not.

“the authors vastly mischaracterize Schiaparelli's reasons for identifying the 'canals' on Mars”

How even would they be mischaracterizing it? All they say is that he “built on this work”. They also don’t say he was the one identifying canals. He was Italian and it says that his work was mistranslated.

“and imply (completely falsely) that Mars lacks polar ice caps”

They say no such thing. They talk about their discovery: “The Dutch astronomer Christian Huygens (1629-1695) first identified pale patches at the poles of Mars using a primitive telescope”.

“Also, there were a lot of astronomers finding canals on Mars, it wasn't just Schiaparelli.”

Ironic that you have so much to say about how much the source misunderstood, but you don’t seem to have understood anything its saying. There are no canals on Mars – the source says the Italian word was mistranslated as “’canals’, implying constructed waterways. Under this misapprehension…”.

It says the original Italian word means “’channels’ or ‘rifts’”, which is what Mars has.

“And of course, H.G. Wells was a science fiction author writing fiction, not a scientist theorizing as this book states”

It never calls him a scientist.

“Not to mention that the biologists who wrote about the Painter count all said the plates were unclear at the time, contrary to what this author states”

The author states that “in the 1920’s staining and microscope slide preparation techniques left the matter in some doubt”. It agrees they were unclear. FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The comment above, arguing with me is one of the most willfully ignorant arguments on this page. Congrats on reaching a new low. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We can't get anywhere with this sort of talk. You said to Perfect Orange Sphere that he was "edit warring instead of discussing". But with this aren't you insulting instead of discussing? FL or Atlanta (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion with you is pointless. You've proven time and time again that you will twist any meaning you want out of anything which is ever said, up to and including lying outright. Also, when I characterize your arguments, that's not an insult. If I ever decide to insult you, I will do so creatively, at length, and in a very public and obvious manner. Suffice it to say, you've once again twisted both my words and the words of the book you are defending in order to support an irrational and unsupportable position. However, I'm not going to explain any of it to you because there is no point. You will continue to think and say whatever the hell you feel like thinking and saying, regardless of what anyone says or does. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Chromosome example

I don't understand why this is the sole example in the article. Sure, it may literally be true that there were appeals to authority involved in the case, but presenting this as the sole "notable example" of an appeal to authority gives the impression that appeals to authority characteristically lead people astray, an misconception that the article has wisely moved past.

Do we even need a section of "notable examples" of appeals to authority? That seems a bit odd, just as it would be odd to have a list of "notable examples" of modus ponens or disjunctive weakening.

(By the way, thanks to MjolnirPants and Original Position for their work in improving the article these last few months.) Lord Mondegreen (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Check the sources. FLoA is using synthesis and quote mining to support this section. If you look above in the Examples section, you'll see where I tried to explain it to him, only to run up against the wall of his usual refusal to listen or even understand anything that doesn't fit into his preconceived view of the subject. I stopped reverting him because I don't want to be an edit warrior, a concern that FLoA doesn't seem to share. Note also that FLoA has been threatened with a topic ban and an editing block by an admin if he continues to edit the article against consensus and sources, but the admin seems reluctant to actually follow through (though he followed through on the other editor who was helping FLoA, and as a result, got him to work productively). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Even supposing that the sources really show that Painter's number was accepted because of an appeal to authority, I don't think we should have a section like this. That seems to render the discussion moot. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If there were to be an example section, the best form would be hypothetical examples. However, even those would just be copies of the form as stated in the Logical Form section with X and p replaced with actual claims. I wanted to keep the section a while back, but the more I think about it, the less I want it. I certainly don't want an example section that implies the argument is always fallacious, as FLoA's does. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Lord Mondegreen and MjolnirPants in this case. The chromosome example is in fact a fascinating one. But in the history of Arguments from Authority among all people on earth, there are reasons not to include chromosome number as the only example. The most important reason is that while science does sometimes suffer from arguments from authority, both the entire scientific method and corpus of knowledge have been built to explicitly avoid the problems that arise from arguments from authority. As a result, just writing about chromosome number without many other examples or context is highly misleading. -Darouet (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected

Owing to the recent edit warring on this page, it has been protected for a period of 1 week. Please use this time to come to a consensus on what should and should not be included. Use a third opinion if necessary. Feel free to request unprotection if the edit war resolves before the expiry of that period. Resuming edit warring after unprotection is liable to result in users being blocked. Listef (klat) 10:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)