We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
«  
  »

Samizdata quote of the day

· Slogans & Quotations

Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.
– Leonardo Da Vinci

July 1st, 2006 |

10 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Nick M
    July 2, 2006 at 12:48 am

    “Argument from Authority” is a much earlier listed logical fallacy – but after England going out on penalties you’ll be be buggered if you can expect me to quote it chapter and verse.

  • permanent expat
    July 2, 2006 at 2:07 am

    Nick M: (off thread a bit; sorry) Another classic case of snatching defeat etc. There are rules to the game and, if you employ a young thug, no matter how talented with his feet, in your team, he will surely put those feet to questionable use. Such idiots have little to keep their ears apart. The groin-stamper ( I did carefully watch the slo-mo) can now stand proudly beside T.Blair as another of The Septic Isle’s causes for shame. Tableau theme, maybe: Argument & Authority.

  • guy herbert
    July 2, 2006 at 7:07 am

    In practice, arguers from authority are not much concerned with the exactitude of citation than exacting application: it is their authority that matters to them, and memory has less to do with it than apostolic claim to legitimacy in the exercise of arbitrary power.

    As a Cameroonian soldier told the Economist’s man who was writing about distribution of goods in Africe, a couple of Christmasses back: “I know the law. I have a gun.”

    Whoever made up the ‘Leonardo’ quote was being too generous.

  • James of England
    July 2, 2006 at 8:32 am

    Those of us in law might beg to differ. The most prestigious portion of our profession (senior appellate practices) spends their time almost entirely engaging in appeals to authority. There are many members of the Supreme Court Bar, and many QCs, who are far from stupid.

    Those who work in science might look back to Newton’s quote “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” A more accurate statement might be “Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence alone; he is also using his memory.”

  • dearieme
    July 2, 2006 at 11:38 am

    All of us are sometimes wise not to trust our intelligence; some of us are always wise not to do so.

  • Nick M
    July 2, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    permanent expat,

    I couldn’t agree with you more. There is no shame in losing a footie match – it’s a game afterall. There is shame in having your alleged “star-player” sent off for a piece of pointless nastiness. The BBC pundits tried to explain it away as being a result of Rooney’s “frustration” at the poor service he’d received in the first half. This is an argument from the playground – little Wayne is only agressive because no one will play with him.

    I think I could see my way clear to not hoofing a Portugese in the pills for 100 grand a week.

    If we have any honour Wayne Rooney (who BTW hasn’t scored for England in 2 years) has played his last international. The “man” is a total fuckwit and this incident just tops off a litany of his sins. Beckham looked surly when subbed and Sven looked like a gargoyle and was about as mobile.

    It is all hype and nonsense. Beckham, Rooney, Lampard and all the “big stars” were eclipsed by the much maligned Owen Hargreaves, the “comical” Peter Crouch and Aaron Lennon who was seen as “surprise selection”.

    There is authority and pecking-order in football and (not for the first time) we saw that fail because when it comes down to it a man’s character is worth more than the sum total of his advertising endorsements.

  • permanent expat
    July 2, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    Amen…………………..Pigs grunt.

  • J
    July 2, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    The comparison with Newton’s “standing on the shoulders of giants” isn’t really valid. When, as a scientist I use Avogadro’s number in a calculation, without knowing exactly how that number is derived, I am NOT implicity saying:

    “This number is the right number because Avogadro says so, and he sure knew what he was talking about, so that’s good enough for me”

    _That_ would be an appeal to authority. What instead is being implicity said is:

    “This number is the right number because Avogadro and others since have proved it scientifically. If you doubt those proofs, you can research them yourself. I know this number has been used for this purpose sucessfully many times before, so I am not repeating the proof here.”

    This is an appeal to induction (basically “x has been true many times, therefore x will be true next time”). Induction is considered worthless by many schools of philosophy, but it’s hardly the same thing as an appeal to authority.

  • Perry de Havilland
    July 2, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    An example often seen in the comments here is appeals to The Constitution… which may make sence in the anti-intellectual realms of law and politics but when trying to have a philosophical discussion that needs to go back to first principles, it is worthless.

  • guy herbert
    July 4, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    Pace James of England, I’d distinguish a legal case based on comparison and application of a range of precedent to the analysis of a factual situation in order to persuade a critical court (something not so different from what a scientist does), from the argument from authority in the wild, which amounts to, “Do this because I say so, and X says I may say so.” The first begs consideration and attention to the argument; the second demands compliance and seeks to squash discussion.

«  
  »