I try to teach my students that argument by authority
is VERBOTEN!!!!!!
Amen, brother. Thanks.
=====================
Let me go into a little more detail on this.
WHY should it be verboten?
Looking back at my own career to date:
-- One could cite lots of very authoritative authorities as the basis for
"knowing" that it is impossible to design a voltmeter with input noise less
than sqrt(hbar).
-- One could cite lots of authorities as the basis for "knowing" that the
outputs of a neural network converge to a representation of the maximum
likelihood probability P(I|C), not the maximum a_priori probability P(C|I),
nor the joint probability P(C,I), nor anything else.
-- One could cite lots of authorities as the basis for "knowing" that it
is impossible to design a logic gate that dissipates less than 1/2 C V^2
per operation.
-- The authoritative FAA Flight Training Handbook says that to recover
from a spiral dive (graveyard spiral) you should roll the wings level and
pull back on the yoke.
-- Et cetera.
But my colleagues and I did design a low-noise voltmeter, less than
sqrt(hbar). I really don't care how many textbooks say it can't be done.
Similarly, my colleagues and I did construct a network that produces
P(C,I), which was just what was needed to make a complex product work right.
And my colleagues and I did construct a logic chip dissipating much less
than 1/2 C V^2 per gate per operation. I really don't care how many
textbooks say this is impossible.
To recover from a severe spiral dive, you should roll the wings level and
_not_ pull back. This is a matter of life and death.
==================
If a ten-year-old with no credentials whatsoever makes a physically-correct
argument, it is a physically-correct argument.
If an authority with every possible credential makes a physically-incorrect
argument, it is a physically-incorrect argument.
You can validate (or invalidate) empirical results by repeating the
experiment. You can validate (or invalidate) theoretical results by
repeating the calculation, and/or checking for consistency with other
theoretical and empirical results.
A central part of the research job description involves finding out where
the authorities are wrong.
If you have questions about some assertion, checking the credentials of the
"authority" making the assertion is _not_ a reliable check. Seeing who
argues the loudest and longest is _not_ a reliable check.
=========
PS don't get me started about aviation security authorities, past or present.