by J.B. Shurk, American Thinker:
All ‘authorities’ should be challenged.
Occasionally I hear credentialed professionals with prestigious titles whine about the so-called “war on expertise.” It really bothers people who see themselves as “experts” that a growing share of society ignores them. A psychologist might intuit something revealing from the lack of self-confidence plaguing our “expert” class. If all the fancy degrees, voluminous curricula vitae, and lofty career positions have failed to instill a resilient modicum of self-esteem, then perhaps all those things are not the true measures of a person’s worth.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
“Experts” do not like to be challenged. They say things such as, “I have a PhD in this,” or, “I get paid a lot of money to talk about that,” and expect everybody listening to stop thinking and immediately agree with everything the “expert” has to say. I once witnessed a young “race studies” professor intrude into an online debate and tell everyone that she was correct and everybody else was wrong. Her evidence? She cited the costs of her education, her recent promotion, and her new annual salary. Traditionally, that’s considered a specific kind of logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. When appeals to “expertise” replace reason and rationality, false conclusions are more easily justified.
We have been living in an era rife with appeals to authority masquerading as truth. In fact, I came across something hilariously unsurprising as I was writing this essay. Because Internet search engines no longer operate as research tools but rather as propaganda aggregators, I often have to peruse many pages of search results before I find topical and pertinent sources. Leftwing disinformation index Wikipedia routinely receives prime placement for any online query. I decided to check how the propagandists at Wikipedia describe appeals to authority these days, and the editors did not disappoint (someone as cynical as I):
“While all sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, and therefore, obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible, there is disagreement on the general extent to which it is fallible — historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources.” My sides, they hurt so much as I laugh uncontrollably! Then Wikipedia’s meaningless equivocation ends with this gem: “Some consider it a practical and sound way of obtaining knowledge that is generally likely to be correct when the authority is real.”
There you go, kids! So long as the “authority” is “real,” it’s quite “practical” and “sound” to hand your brain over to the resident “expert” or AI machine and let he/she/it do your thinking for you! It’s not a “logical fallacy” if the “authority” says it’s not! How very twenty-first-century of the 1984-like censors, history rewriters, and information warfare specialists who manage the world’s “free” encyclopedia. Wikipedia may be “free,” but it still levies a steep tax. The “price” of offshoring one’s thinking to “experts” is a life filled with few cogent thoughts. That’s too high of a cost for any human seeking wisdom.
Read More @ AmericanThinker.com
