Authority can be convincing, but is it infallible?
論理的な議論をする際の、権威と専門家の役割について考察しよう。
In general we should trust experts and authority. But are they infallible (incapable of making mistakes or being wrong)? No, experts and authority figures are people too, and people make mistakes.
Note: You may want to ask if your student understands how "authority" is being used here: a person or source with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert. "He was an authority on the stock market."
Take a look at this advertisement from the 1930's:
It says:
20,679 physicians say Luckies are less irritating. Toasting removes dangerous irritants that cause throat irritation and coughing.
How much should we trust these physicians? Why do you think they said such a thing?
Ask your student if they smoke. If so, be kind about it. Smoking is not terrible.
Does toasting the tobacco reduce "dangerous irritants"? It might, but the ad seems to be saying that smoking toasted cigarettes is safer. It isn't.
Reasons for the doctor to say this might be:
- They are paid by cigarette companies to say this;
- They love cigarettes themselves and are tricking themselves;
- They read a flawed study;
- They are being misquoted in the ad; or
- They are just plain evil (but hopefully not).
Imagine you are talking to the woman shown in the ad. We could say to the woman in the ad, "To be honest, I'm no so sure that we should trust this doctor. What do other doctors say? What kind of studies does this doctor have to back up his claim? Where did this doctor even get his/her degree?"
Thinking logically, we can call experts into question. What kind of things can you call into question to weaken a claim from authority?
Some phrases for evaluating authority are shown below. Using softer language to do this is more suitable. Why? We can use phrases like:
Personally, I think it's important that we...
...consider (the reason for...)
I feel the need to...
...question (why...)
I suppose we can...
...take a look at (this a little more deeply.)
This does not mean that experts and authority are right or wrong. It simply means that we might see ways that their conclusions can be questioned. It can weaken your argument, or give you ammunition to attack the argument of another person.
What kind of things can you call into question to weaken a claim from authority?
- Sources or data—which studies or evidence lead to this conclusion?
- Scientific consensus—how many studies have come to this conclusion?
- Funding—who has paid for this? Has the conclusion supported the organization where the funding comes from?
- Logic—can we track this? How do claims line up with conclusion?
- Character—what kind of a person would say such a thing? (This is not a logical argument though, and you should want to talk a bit about ad hominem here, where a rebuttal is directed at the person rather than the content of the argument).
Using softer language to do this is more suitable. Why?
Softer language is humble. You are saying you know more than an expert. You should do that in a polite and indirect way. If you do not, you might sound arrogant.
If your student is a consultant, you can point out to them that the authority in this case could be their client. This language can be used to disagree indirectly with the client (an authority on their own business).
Work on the table and make some examples with the student. Point out that the table is combinatorial; that is that you can mix and match each part of the sentence (there are 9 possible sentences, so don't do them all).
Some examples of this:
- Personally, I think that it is important we consider the sources of funding for this research.
- Personally, I think that it is important we question the sources of funding for this research.
- Personally, I think that it is important that we take a look at the sources of funding for this research.
This should just get them comfortable with the pattern and grammar of the sentences.
Below are some claims by authority. Consider how valid they are, and think of any questions that you can ask to weaken the argument. Some of these may be perfectly valid, while others are partially valid or completely invalid.
- Scientists state that nicotine improves brain function.
- Doctors have linked peptic ulcers to the stress of modern life.
- A study on rats, funded by the Sugar Association, found adverse effects of consuming an artificial sweetener. The manufacturer responded by sponsoring its own team of experts to refute the study.
- According to Google's reports, their self-driving cars are 100% safe.