1

Prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church (a classic pyramid-shaped institution) was the sole authority on matters of theology.

False.

2

On the surface, this incident may be read as a cautionary tale about trusting the Internet’s self-professed experts. But what about the people who were satisfied with Allen’s answers? There is no evidence that the teenager’s answers were inadequate --at least not any more so than the average law school graduate. The problem appears not to be with inaccuracy but with our need for reliable authority.

Ahhh but note who attacked this poor kid, not poor seekers of 'reliable authority' but lawyers, who are presumably already authorities. Lawyers are a guild based system (one of the few still remaining). Such systems have as their core mission limiting a profession to entry (hence the bar exam must be passed before one can practice) and convincing everyone else that they need a full fledged lawyer for even the most mundane of legal transactions.

Anyone whose taken a few law courses, though, gets the sense that most of law is nothing more than memorization. That being the case it isn't surprising a 15 year old kid who knows Google very well probably could get to be a pretty good legal expert. What these lawyers didn't like is that he exposed their club for the racket that it is.

The pressing question is what effect this fragmentation of authority will have on society. Although it has occasionally suffered further schism, the Protestant church generally holds a core of shared beliefs (e.g., the Nicene Creed) and texts (e.g., the Bible) while differing on the “non-essentials.” Will such institutions as the government and the media be able to maintain a similar balance? What will America look like if we all have a libertarian attitude about what constitutes a reliable authority?

Sometimes what seems new is really just so old that we've forgotten it was there all along. The US Constitution is based on your pancake structure. No single branch of gov't has all the authority, just about nothing exists that is not checked or balanced by something else. The net effect is a rather wikish 'filtering' process where nothing happens unless people are behind it (and that doesn't mean just 50%+, quite often the checks and balances require that a supermajority is necessary).

3

Hi Joe,

I really admire how you can explain a part of the world in a way it has not been explained before. You are the rare blend of a solid thinker and a creative writer.

We all need to develop a gut for determining if what we hear and read sounds true. Then, we need to be willing to test and actually test our own beliefs. If a person becomes satisfied with a single source, regardless of the reliability of the source, the person will have some false beliefs.

4

Joe:

Interesting post on authority.

I wish to add a clip on the underlyinhg framework of argument as the objective is reliably accessing the truth and the wise, not following blind opinions or institutions that can be subverted by dominant groups. [I have argued here that the party-line thinking on Evolutionary Materialism vs Intelligent Design is an unfortunate case in point . . .]

I think B has a point on memory [and associated experience and intuition -- Google etc can't model that yet!] but there is an underlying issue: we want serious expertise when we deal with the non-routine cases, and that is where expert lawyers and doctors and engineers etc earn every penny they get, the hard way. The intuition of a real expert is what gets you out of trouble when the chips are down and you do not have the time to go Google! Much of that sort of stuff is simply not on the net!!!]

Now for that clip:

a clear distinction has long since been drawn between persuasion by proof (or apparent proof) and that by appeals to emotions and/or to the credibility of an authority or speaker, not to mention, outright spin/propaganda tactics. Since, there is a common tendency to either blindly follow emotions or authorities on the one hand, or else to -- equally blindly -- dismiss them when they do not tell us what we wish to hear on the other, it is worth pausing to remark further on this pattern of appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos:

1. Facts and Logic: Strictly, only the appeal to "facts" and "logic" actually has the potential to prove its conclusions [within limits . . . ]. For, the mere intensity of our feelings or even the depth of our feeling of "certainty" [or for that matter, our degree of doubt] cannot ground any conclusions. Likewise, no authority is better than the facts, assumptions and reasoning behind his or her opinions. This is why we should examine claimed facts and inferences from them carefully, to see if such “facts” are true and representative of the truth, and that conclusions follow logically from these premises.

2. Explanations: Of course, logic also plays a role in the "opposite" kind of reasoning: abductive explanation. For, sometimes, we need to provide an explanation for the credible facts. In that case, if facts F1, F2, F3, . . . Fn are puzzling, but if we accept explanation E, at once the facts follow logically, so E is an explanation for the facts, which provide empirical support for E. But, E has NOT been proved: there are often other possible explanations: E1, E2, E3 etc. So, we need to compare alternate explanations on factual adequacy, ability to predict new facts accurately, logical coherence and explanatory power, in order to infer that any given explanation is the best [current] explanation of the facts. That is how worldview analysis works, and it is how scientific models or theories and historical or jurisprudential explanations work as well. Explanations are, plainly, defeatable reasoning: for, "new" facts or issues over logical consistency and simplicity/ad hocness can overturn such an explanation.

3. Authority: Moreover, appeals to authority -- starting with a good dictionary or credible eyewitnesses, teachers and other technical experts -- are a practical necessity for almost all real-world arguments; so we must discipline ourselves to authenticate the “authorities” we appeal to. We should also be alert to bias, mistakes, debatable assumptions and other limitations. For, a good authority can save us much time and effort, and when in doubt, if an authority is credible, it may well be wise indeed to heed his or her opinion. (For instance, that is often the critical issue in matters of history, where selective hyper-skepticism can lead to systematic and foolish inconsistencies when one gives in to the temptation to be unreasonably skeptical about claims one is not comfortable with. Modern biblical studies, sadly, provides a capital case in point.)

4. Emotions and Perceptions: Even more subtly, an emotional response may well rest on an accurate perception of a situation, so we need to inquire carefully [where it is appropriate to do so -- if you see an out-of-control car headed your way, JUMP!] into the credibility -- trustworthiness, perceived and real -- of the underlying perceptions, beliefs/doubts, intuitions and judgements that are the cognitive basis for our felt emotions. However, plainly, we must always be wary of being blinded by our feelings, fears, ideals, prejudices, assumptions, impulses, lusts, greed and/or envy, or even by unmet needs.

5. The appropriate place for Rhetoric: Having duly noted all of this, rhetorical approaches and issues -- if only in self defense -- are still vital, especially if the audience may not have the education, time or inclination to follow out a detailed demonstration, or may simply be unwilling [or, just as bad sometimes, is only too willing] to listen to a given presenter of a case. For, sadly, actual proofs and/or inferences to what is indeed the best current explanation are often the least persuasive arguments: they take too much time, effort and attention. So, credible persons should present cases, and in so doing, they should make appropriately logical but easy- to- follow, honest appeals to credible facts, authorities and sources or witnesses, as well as to accurate perceptions, to well-founded and upright motives of the heart, and to the conscience. For, as the key real-world example of the success against all odds of the antislavery movement of the C18 - 19 shows -- and as 2 Cor 4:1 - 2 & 10:4 - 5 with Eph 4:9 - 24 (esp. vv. 14 - 15 & 17 - 24) discuss -- these are proper, effective, and even vital in many all- too- important real-world situations.

Trust that helps.

+++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

5

Joe:

Interesting post on authority. I note that in the Western Church the Roman Catholic hierarchy did claim to be the arbiter of theology based on Apostolic succession and the teaching authority of the church. But by the mid 1000's the eastern patriarchates had walked away.

I wish to add a clip on the underlyinhg framework of argument as the objective is reliably accessing the truth and the wise, not following blind opinions or institutions that can be subverted by dominant groups. [I have argued here that the party-line thinking on Evolutionary Materialism vs Intelligent Design is an unfortunate case in point . . .]

I think B has a point on memory [and associated experience and intuition -- Google etc can't model that yet!] but there is an underlying issue: we want serious expertise when we deal with the non-routine cases, and that is where expert lawyers and doctors and engineers etc earn every penny they get, the hard way. The intuition of a real expert is what gets you out of trouble when the chips are down and you do not have the time to go Google! Much of that sort of stuff is simply not on the net!!!]

Now for that clip:

a clear distinction has long since been drawn between persuasion by proof (or apparent proof) and that by appeals to emotions and/or to the credibility of an authority or speaker, not to mention, outright spin/propaganda tactics. Since, there is a common tendency to either blindly follow emotions or authorities on the one hand, or else to -- equally blindly -- dismiss them when they do not tell us what we wish to hear on the other, it is worth pausing to remark further on this pattern of appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos:

1. Facts and Logic: Strictly, only the appeal to "facts" and "logic" actually has the potential to prove its conclusions [within limits . . . ]. For, the mere intensity of our feelings or even the depth of our feeling of "certainty" [or for that matter, our degree of doubt] cannot ground any conclusions. Likewise, no authority is better than the facts, assumptions and reasoning behind his or her opinions. This is why we should examine claimed facts and inferences from them carefully, to see if such “facts” are true and representative of the truth, and that conclusions follow logically from these premises.

2. Explanations: Of course, logic also plays a role in the "opposite" kind of reasoning: abductive explanation. For, sometimes, we need to provide an explanation for the credible facts. In that case, if facts F1, F2, F3, . . . Fn are puzzling, but if we accept explanation E, at once the facts follow logically, so E is an explanation for the facts, which provide empirical support for E. But, E has NOT been proved: there are often other possible explanations: E1, E2, E3 etc. So, we need to compare alternate explanations on factual adequacy, ability to predict new facts accurately, logical coherence and explanatory power, in order to infer that any given explanation is the best [current] explanation of the facts. That is how worldview analysis works, and it is how scientific models or theories and historical or jurisprudential explanations work as well. Explanations are, plainly, defeatable reasoning: for, "new" facts or issues over logical consistency and simplicity/ad hocness can overturn such an explanation.

3. Authority: Moreover, appeals to authority -- starting with a good dictionary or credible eyewitnesses, teachers and other technical experts -- are a practical necessity for almost all real-world arguments; so we must discipline ourselves to authenticate the “authorities” we appeal to. We should also be alert to bias, mistakes, debatable assumptions and other limitations. For, a good authority can save us much time and effort, and when in doubt, if an authority is credible, it may well be wise indeed to heed his or her opinion. (For instance, that is often the critical issue in matters of history, where selective hyper-skepticism can lead to systematic and foolish inconsistencies when one gives in to the temptation to be unreasonably skeptical about claims one is not comfortable with. Modern biblical studies, sadly, provides a capital case in point.)

4. Emotions and Perceptions: Even more subtly, an emotional response may well rest on an accurate perception of a situation, so we need to inquire carefully [where it is appropriate to do so -- if you see an out-of-control car headed your way, JUMP!] into the credibility -- trustworthiness, perceived and real -- of the underlying perceptions, beliefs/doubts, intuitions and judgements that are the cognitive basis for our felt emotions. However, plainly, we must always be wary of being blinded by our feelings, fears, ideals, prejudices, assumptions, impulses, lusts, greed and/or envy, or even by unmet needs.

5. The appropriate place for Rhetoric: Having duly noted all of this, rhetorical approaches and issues -- if only in self defense -- are still vital, especially if the audience may not have the education, time or inclination to follow out a detailed demonstration, or may simply be unwilling [or, just as bad sometimes, is only too willing] to listen to a given presenter of a case. For, sadly, actual proofs and/or inferences to what is indeed the best current explanation are often the least persuasive arguments: they take too much time, effort and attention. So, credible persons should present cases, and in so doing, they should make appropriately logical but easy- to- follow, honest appeals to credible facts, authorities and sources or witnesses, as well as to accurate perceptions, to well-founded and upright motives of the heart, and to the conscience. For, as the key real-world example of the success against all odds of the antislavery movement of the C18 - 19 shows -- and as 2 Cor 4:1 - 2 & 10:4 - 5 with Eph 4:9 - 24 (esp. vv. 14 - 15 & 17 - 24) discuss -- these are proper, effective, and even vital in many all- too- important real-world situations.

Trust that helps.

BTW, B guess what worldview led or influenced the US founders to take a view that fallen men needed to be checked and balanced . . . ?

+++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon