Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: authorities



I generally agree that argument by authority is bad but are there cases
where we should give some weight and credence to official statements on
topics from professional organizations? As it concerns science literacy, I
instruct my students to give a high degree of credence to the
"authoritative statement" made by the APS on Power Line Fields and Public
Health.

I believe students need to perform a balancing act between being
scientifically literate and not being able to spend the time to research
all the details concerning EMFs and health effects.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Alan Scott


At 10:03 PM 10/16/2001 -0400, you wrote:
At 02:55 PM 10/16/01 -0500, Jack Uretsky wrote:

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.


Alan J. Scott
103G Jarvis Hall (Science Wing)
Department of Physics
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, WI 54751
------------------------
Office Phone (715)232-2401
E-Mail scotta@uwstout.edu
Home Page http://physics.uwstout.edu/staff/scott/
Geology Home Page http://physics.uwstout.edu/geo/
Stout Science Program http://physics.uwstout.edu/stoutsci/
FAX (715)232-1437
------------------------