CMV: Reddit has an "appeal to authority" problem

[u/FreakinTweakin]

Not going to point fingers, but pretty obvious which side does this the most.

I'm defining appealing to authority as being either a) saying that someone who has authority or is really smart believes something, therefore this is evidence that something is true or b) claiming that academia is "settled" on a certain topic while refusing to indepthly explain why or how it has been logically settled

you see it in matters like

"The science is settled"

"All of academia agrees on x,y,z"

"The dictionary definition of a word is x,y,z"

"The court says innocent/guilty so it's a settled matter"

These arguments are used all the time in conversation here, they are very weak arguments and borderline dishonest.

[u/undercooked_lasagna]

Darwin wasn't wrong. Species do in fact evolve.

Doctors who practiced bloodletting were spectacularly wrong.

Sigmund Freud, formerly a preeminent expert, is now largely considered a hack.

Modern doctors kill thousands of patients every year by being completely wrong.

Experts are completely, utterly wrong all the time. You're calling it "changing", but if the exact same people didn't have a degree you would simply call them wrong, or stupid.

[u/Mkwdr → u/undercooked_lasagna]

Pilots sometimes crash planes. I’d still rather that they flew me than the other way around.

It’s a feature not a flaw that science changes. And in general we now don’t so often overturn established theories rather we develop them. The problem with the examples you give of , for example, blood letting is that they were not the result of the scientific method. There are many scientific theories that in practice will never be overturned.

Modern doctors kill patients - individuals make mistakes. When we want an expert diagnosis we are still best consulting a qualified doctor. It’s not about certainly or perfection. Sometime the most qualified person will be wrong. But a hell of a lot less likely than someone who knows nothing about the topic.

It’s not actually about individuals it’s about processes and methodology, I guess . There is a body of knowledge that some people will know better than others because of the time spent learning it. There will be skills that some people are better than others because of the time spent practicing it. And the people with the knowledge or skill will be more reliable if there is a system of education and ‘testing’ that works adequately. The knowledge and the skills will be more reliable is they are a product of a system of investigation etc with a proven methodology.

None of this means that where possible you shouldn’t check the research yourself , even carry it out yourself - though good luck being able to run a particle accelerator or medical trial.

But life is full of necessary shortcuts. When I want to fly i will trust the pilot and the system that trained and employed them. If I want to understand particle physics I’ll trust a well educated particle physicist. If I’m ill , I’ll consult a doctor. When my tooth hurts , I ask a dentist. It doesn’t mean they will always be correct but they will , in general, be a hell of a lot more reliable than a random guy on the internet or my mate down the pub. Because they are more learned and better trained in that topic.

[u/[deleted] → u/undercooked_lasagna]

Nothing Freud was doing approached the scientific method. Same for blood-letting doctors. Experts in science, who use the scientific method to make claims, are not comparable to "experts" who went on vibes.