Four questions regarding authorities and the nature of truth

Post Reply New Topic

1. If a given notion is true and all relevant authorities say it is true, are they:

A. Correct?
B. Incorrect?

2. If a given notion is false and all relevant authorities say it is true, are they:

A. Correct?
B. Incorrect?

3. If a given notion is true and all relevant authorities say it is false, are they:

A. Correct?
B. Incorrect?

4. If a given notion is false and all relevant authorities say it is false, are they:

A. Correct?
B. Incorrect?

Truth is truth. Authorities backing it or opposing it does not change that reality...only the public perception of it.

A
B
B
A

A, B, B, A. However, you should not that questions 1 and 4 come up far more often than questions 2 and 3. Many people seem to use such a formulation as this to justify any crackpot theory and reject arguments against it posed by experts.

Such as how Heliocentrism was once viewed? (In regard to the solar system anyhow. I mean during the days of Galileo, et al).

Exactly, truth is independent of perception. It is not a matter of whether those claiming authority vote on it, nor anyone else.

ABBA. It's disco time.


M.

The answer is a b b a.

The problem is that you are confusing the metaphysical issue of truth with the epistemological problems with truth.

Metaphysically, I think we all know that the truth of something is independent of who accepts it.

Epistemically, we also know that we individually often aren't in a great position to evaluate many claims, and even if we tried, we might end up making an error that a more experienced or trained individual would likely avoid. I mean, what are you going to claim in response? That intellectual authorities should not exist? That's absurd, not all individuals can do all things. For that reason it is better of us to have experts evaluate what is true in the relevant fields, whereas we'll evaluate the truths that matter for our own lives.

I don't see how that is absurd, and really, I see a railing against intellectual authorities as somewhat absurd. Nobody can avoid them, and usually the people who disagree are more likely to be wrong than the authorities on the matter. Cranks abound, but academic consensus is quite rare. I mean, what is your counter-proposition? Have every person, regardless of mental capacity or lack thereof investigate every claim in existence? That is simply infeasible. People will always submit themselves to authorities on some matters, but the issue is then what authorities are better?

That example more applies two questions 2 and 3, not 1 and 4. This is because heliocentrism was technically true but the authorities at the time believed it to be false.

Intellectual authorities should exist. What I'm saying is that they do not decide truth. The underlying reality is more important than what the corporate opinion of intelligentsia is. There should be experts, but their expert opinion is not necessarily correct.

I agree with you.

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
- Carl Sagan

Pending any major developments, I'm putting creationists in with Bozo the Clown, not with Galileo.

Bozo the clown is intending to cause laughter, creationists are not.

Such non-Christian philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle argued for the existence of gods from the orderliness of the motion of the heavenly bodies (which can either be considered outdated, as the earth's revolution accounts for most of the order. Or it can be considered valid within the confines of the Lawmaker argument.)

Aristotle argued, though on the same basis as his teacher Plato, that there must have been a "First Unmoved Mover which is God, a living, intelligent, incorporeal, eternal and most good being who is the source of order in the cosmos."

Cicero argued against the Epicurean version of evolution of that day, as well as the atheism of that day, in De Natura Deorum.

Paul of Tarsus argues, or more like stated really, that "His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made."

Aquinas argued that, "The fifth way [of determining God's existence] is taken from the governance of the world...."

Newton argued against atheism even.

William Paley, in 1804, put the design argument into modern terms of the 1800's in his book Natural Theology.

Arthur Wilder-Smith was one of the main anti-evolutionist in the 1900's.

Currently, there are still educated apologists arguing against atheism in terms of its atheological foundations in the current version of natural philosophy.


These people do not intend to make such people, as you or Sagan, laugh. In such cases, the laughter of this type says more about who is laughing than who they are laughing at.

Umm.... first off, evolution and atheism aren't exactly the same issue. I mean, Francis Collins and Ken Miller are both religious people and believe in evolution.

In any case, most of your examples are pre-Darwinian, and what you stated: "Currently, there are still educated apologists arguing against atheism in terms of its atheological foundations in the current version of natural philosophy." still doesn't fully vindicate your case. As I am sure that you are talking about Intelligent Design and related ideas, yes? It is quite easily recognized that most experts accept evolution, and honestly, the criticism of non-evolutionists at this point is mostly considered something to be dismissed. Why? It is clearly ideological. If you dislike the fact that I have stated this, then let us look at your past statement:

"apologists arguing against atheism in terms of its atheological foundations in the current version of natural philosophy"

That doesn't sound like an unbiased spectator. Now, I am not claiming that people have no right to watch and have favorites. But the issue is that even you know that there are a large number of cranks, most outsiders can see strong ideological ties of people within this group to certain claims that they value to an extreme extent, not only that, but you are engaging in an effort to overthrow modern science, not even just one theory, but several from cosmology to geology, from principles of speciation to perhaps even neuroscience (non-materialist neuroscience??).

Now, all of that is a problem. Even if atheists have their biases, there is currently less of an issue with them trying to overthrow modern science, and they certainly seem more responsive to mainstream science. Now, this is all a digression. Orwell was only making the point that some positions seem absurd enough to be rejected. While I can understand that you likely hate that your ideas are so strongly rejected, but somehow I doubt that they were treated in such an utterly unfair manner. Look at your own history and all of the pre-Darwinian thinkers there. Either a magic event happened, or people irrationally started adopting evolution, or evolution basically won out due to some level of intellectual merit.

Authorities are far more influentual than notions.

Influence has no effect upon the matter of truth: