Conspiracy Theories and Appeals to Authority

If there's one thing conspiracy theorists are good at, it's making appeals to authority. Whether we're talking 9/11 truthers, climate deniers, creationists, UFO believers, or New World Order nuts, there always seems to be a tendency to name-drop some "expert" who "totally PROVES" the conspiracy in question, rather than providing evidence or arguments firsthand. Check out this website, check out this book, check out this guy's work... the believer may know a few of the primary lines of rhetoric from memory, but rarely are they able to go into a detailed debate without tossing out the names of other conspiracy theorist sources. The funny thing is that you can usually detect an immediate frustration when you call someone out on using biased sources. The reaction is almost always, "Well, so what?!"

An appeal to authority is not always a fallacy, though it is often used fallaciously. There are two major factors that determine the strength of an appeal to authority: if the authority is a legitimate expert, and if there is a consensus among other legitimate experts. By legitimate expert, I mean someone who is actually qualified in the relevant subject - your average preacher is not an expert on evolution, nor is someone like Kent Hovind, who earned his credentials from a diploma mill. That's not to say that someone needs a degree to be considered an expert, but that they must have a demonstrated knowledge of the subject, and in addition, their knowledge must be confirmed by other experts, preferably those who do hold credentials.

Many of the names dropped by conspiracy theorists fail to accommodate either factor. Alex Jones is not a legitimate expert on any subject. The vast majority of scientists disagree with creationist and climate denial theories. When conspiracy writers have no relevant credentials, they call themselves "researchers." Being an independent researcher is nothing in itself, but when a researcher's opinions stray far from the consensus of established experts and qualify as extraordinary claims, it is perfectly reasonable to reject the appeal to authority as fallacious. Conspiracy theorists like to object, saying that consensus and college degrees don't determine truth, and though they're right in principle, the odds that some amateur researcher has stumbled on a real secret missed by countless legitimate experts are quite negligible - it's part of why they are called conspiracies.

Appeals to authority are inductive arguments, which cannot produce a guaranteed conclusion, but only a probable one. Combine this with the improbable needle in a haystack reality of conspiracy theories that I just described, and things look fairly bleak. This is why I'm always much more interested to hear someone's own arguments for their beliefs, rather than just be given a recommendation for some crackpot who I'm not talking to. It seems inconsiderate as well. I'm taking the time to have a conversation with you, so at least grant me the courtesy of a real conversation, not one in which the flow is interrupted by periodic references to books I haven't read, websites I haven't viewed, and so forth. If you can't make a case for your beliefs on your own, it doesn't seem like you really grasp them all that well. And if that's true, why on earth should I care to hear you out in the first place?

Smart People Don't Always Believe Smart Things

Smart people are very good at justifying things they came to believe for non-smart reasons.
Perhaps no other statement has rung so true, in my experience, than this one from Michael Shermer. It spells the death of appeals to authority. Recently I was told by someone that Muslims offer better arguments for their beliefs than Christians, because they "seem to know what they are talking about what with them being Doctors and all that kind of stuff." This is possibly one of the most imbecilic remarks I've encountered in my conversations with religious believers. Not only does it ignore the many non-Muslim physicians out there (including atheists and agnostics), but it operates on a non-existent connection between medical skill and factually accurate belief.

Doctors may be very intelligent people in their respective fields, yet religion is the realm of philosophy, history, myth, and other fields that are not always well known by medical experts. More importantly, though, even people who have studied religion extensively are not to be trusted off the bat. Certain degrees may warrant further credibility, but only in addition to strong arguments and persuasive evidence. It's the depth of exposure and research that culminates in the credibility assigned to those degrees, and that will be shown in the strength of the case one makes for a particular position. Shermer's statement beautifully illustrates this fact.

Intelligent people are quite capable of compartmentalizing their beliefs and sealing off specific ones in a "do-not-disturb" section. Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, but we need not believe it, even if he was a brilliant scientist. Darwin consulted alternative therapies, but we need not accept them, even if he was also a brilliant scientist. There's nothing about a Muslim holding a physician's degree that tells us whether or not his belief in Islam is founded on good evidence and strong reason. Religious believers are more than willing to embrace the character of those whom they deem to be nice reflections of the religion, but when we point out the garish reflections of suicide bombers, inquisitors, and the likes, cries of a mistaken connection abound.

An appeal to authority should be easily recognized as a fallacy almost at first glance, especially in an age where "experts" are being viewed with increasing skepticism by paranoid and deluded folks like Don McLeroy, the former chair of the Texas State Board of Education. Unfortunately, the fallacy persists. Maybe if we learn to emphasize the value of logic and evidence, then such problems will be avoided, but until we do, I remain doubtful that this common sense truth will really catch on. Still, in the meantime we should all do our part to try and educate others about the fallacy of an appeal to authority.

Appeals to Authority

I just recently finished reading Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? by Norman Golb. Golb's thesis is that the manuscripts found in the Qumran caves are not the work of the Essene sect, or of any single sect at all, but that they are the manuscripts of the Jewish community itself, stored in caves for protection during the First Jewish-Roman War. The general consensus of scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls has identified them as Essene writings since they were found in the 1940s, and although Golb exposes dozens of holes in their theory and masterfully argues for his own with a wealth of evidence, his contentions were largely dismissed and neglected for years.

The reason I bring this up is that it's a perfect example of when scholarly authority goes wrong. Even when the proof can be right directly under a person's nose, they may still miss it or deny it. In the book, Golb illustrates a number of ways in which the prevailing Dead Sea Scrolls authorities (Roland de Vaux and his team) suppress alternative theories and play media games to destroy the reputations of their opponents. The movie Expelled is a farce, to be sure, but the fight for the Dead Sea Scrolls is just that type of 'academic conspiracy'. It's astonishing to me the lengths people will go to in order to defend their pet theories, but it certainly does happen.

Appeals to authority can be dangerous oversights. One of the major criticisms leveled at Golb was that his theory was outside the mainstream opinion of the academia. In other words, 'all these experts say this, so how can they be wrong and you be right?' I hear this same sort of thing when I question the historicity of Jesus. Popular consensus does not make any idea correct though, what matters is the evidence that the consensus is formed upon. In the case of Jesus, the evidence is very slim and very suspicious, and when the 'authorities' on him are often theologians with a deeply vested interest in the historical reality of Christ, it's easy to see why appeals to authority have to be taken with a grain of salt most times.

There is something to be said for authority opinion, however. Generally speaking, you want to learn or be assisted by those who are qualified in the issue at hand. You probably wouldn't trust a plumber to advise you knowledgeably on open-heart surgery. This is part of the reason I don't trust preachers to discuss evolution from a knowledgeable standpoint. I'm not saying that everyone needs to have a degree to have an opinion on something, because many people do take their own time to research subjects they have an interest in. That doesn't mean they are as well informed as they like to think though, especially if their 'research' has been limited mostly to one side of the issue.

So authority opinion only goes so far. When it comes to evolution vs. creationism, I will give more weight to the opinion of a biologist, simply because they have made a career - often times a life's work - out of studying nature, not just from a layman's perspective, but from an objective and methodical perspective. What ultimately matters, though, is evidence. For this reason, I always try to steer clear of appeals to authority when I'm making a case for evolution to those who are unsure of it. Noting that 99% of scientists agree with evolutionary theory is like saying that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein agreed with the theory of gravity. It's nice to know, but it doesn't really mean much unless you explain why there is this agreement.

It's tempting to point to the consesus of authorities, because it's usually so much easier and much less time-consuming than learning the evidence for yourself and knowing how to express it to others. But I find it infinitely more respectable to have a discussion with someone who can make their own statements, rather than someone who makes generalized appeals to authority. I find it frustrating when a person I'm debating with offers up a book as evidence for their viewpoint. 'Have you read The Case for Christ? It addresses all your questions.' If I haven't read the book, am I expected to go read it and suspend conversation until then? Even if I have read it, I'll lose some respect for someone who relies on others to do the thinking and debating for them. (I have read the book, and no, it doesn't answer anything!)

It's definitely worth it to learn the evidence and the argumentation for yourself, I'd say. It's more rewarding intellectually, it generates more respect, and it's the only real way to be persuasive. Appeals to authority do have an appropriate context, but I will never swap critical thinking for them, nor should anyone else.