Joel said,"Too often quoting authority leads to questioning credentials (as we have seen) and obscuring the real issues. It's a waste of mental energy. I'd rather deal with arguments themselves."
My first instinctive response was to agree wholeheartedly. I associate authority with church dogma, bureaucratic red tape, and conservative principles. Incidentally, I don’t understand how you can claim to be a conservative if you don’t accept the cultural authority of the past?
But then I looked at my own work and realized that I could get nowhere without relying on authorities. It would be totally impractical if a scientist had to start every data collection and argument from scratch and could not accept the authority of historical data, mathematical proofs and foundational principles of predecessors.
Even Newton said he was standing on the shoulders of giants. Doesn’t our entire culture stand on the shoulders of giants? A person who does not accept any authority is simply an anarchist. I sometime think anarchy is worth a try, but then I would not call myself a conservative.
2 comments:
Howard said: But then I looked at my own work and realized that I could get nowhere without relying on authorities. It would be totally impractical if a scientist had to start every data collection and argument from scratch and could not accept the authority of historical data, mathematical proofs and foundational principles of predecessors.
Joel responds: I'd like to thank Howard for giving me the opportunity to refine and clarify my views on "argument by authority." This doesn't mean that I condemn the use of tradition, "shoulders of giants," or second-hand data, etc. to provide insight. But insight is not the same as authority. Authority implies compulsion. There exists authority that we all agree to accept as a social contract with others, i.e., government by law and majority rule as a practical matter. If I didn't accept that I would be an anarchist. I don't accept science by authority of the majority or consensus. That doesn't mean that I don't often find myself a member of the majority when the arguments and data seem to support the majority view. However, when arguing, I don't cite the majority view as a reason why I'm right. This especially holds true when the argument has a political or religious component. The other side experiences frustration, since there is no argument against authority practical. One can only argue against arguments MADE by "authority." If these arguments are not contained in the presentation, a impractical amount of labor is required. The result is often a angry dismissive effort to impeach the authority.
I'm surprised at your comment; "I don’t understand how you can claim to be a conservative if you don’t accept the cultural authority of the past." I claim to be a conservative although all conservatives are not exactly the same. I don't cite "cultural authority." Culture evolves, so how can it have any authority? As a conservative I'm bound by a few principles, one of which can be summed up as "individual freedom first." That requires that authority be minimized, since authority requires compulsion. Note that I use the word "minimized" not "eliminated." That would be anarchy. Given the family-in-law background that you describe, I'm not surprised that you view conservatism as a quasi-religious rigidity. With respect -Joel
Joel,
Thank you for your clarification. I think I agree will all your points.
I have to have more time to think about your distinctions.
Where we probably have differences, as I do with Ira, is the optimal amount of government regulation and government assistance (two distinct functions) to achieve the "general welfare."
Howard
Post a Comment