The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Sweet, Sweet Argument From Authority

Posted on | August 1, 2010 | 18 Comments

by Smitty

Via Memorandum, we have Steve Benen assuming the position for the Priesthood

One of the uglier strains of modern conservative thought is pervasive anti-intellectualism. As Faiz Shakir noted today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) offered a rather classic example of “Fox News Sunday.”

Host Chris Wallace noted that “a number of top economists” believe that the nation, right now, needs “more economic stimulus.” Boehner replied, “Well, I don’t need to see GDP numbers or to listen to economists; all I need to do is listen to the American people.”

That’s actually kind of crazy — the “American people,” en masse, lack the qualifications and background needed to make sweeping decisions about complex economic policies. It’s why our system is built around the notion that voters will choose sensible representatives to do this work for us — evaluate a situation, consider the judgment of experts, and ideally reach a wise decision about the way forward.

In reply, one of the saddest of the slak-jawed Lefty poses is its fetishing of Argument from Authority. The general form is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

The current American political/economic form is:

  1. Over the last century, Washington DC has declared itself the sole source of all wisdom and power.
  2. If you have doubts, based upon the national debt, budget deficits, impenetrable legislation, non-grasp of Constitutional basics, &c, you might be a conservative/raaaaacits/terrorist.
  3. Shut up.

To quote Thoreau: “Simplify, simplify”. Complexity is something that creeps into all systems. It is fought vigorously by non-idiots, and espoused by (a) fools, and (b) those who stand to make temporary gains from complexity.

Of course, not having gone to their schools, I’m advised to stand in silence while these economists abet the picking of my pockets.

Category: Economics

Comments

18 Responses to “Sweet, Sweet Argument From Authority”

  1. CGHill
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 2:05 am

    Self-proclaimed smart guys got us into this whole mess; no way on God’s green earth can we trust them to get us out of it, unless God Himself sees fit to smite their little reptilian brains with a flash of reality. Historically, this has not been His style, although Saul of Tarsus was not available for comment.

  2. CGHill
    August 1st, 2010 @ 10:05 pm

    Self-proclaimed smart guys got us into this whole mess; no way on God’s green earth can we trust them to get us out of it, unless God Himself sees fit to smite their little reptilian brains with a flash of reality. Historically, this has not been His style, although Saul of Tarsus was not available for comment.

  3. Randy Rager
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 2:07 am

    Leftists are getting damned simple these days. There was a time when the Libertarian or Conservative actually had to be on their game, as the Leftards back then had multiple (sometimes even good) arguments ready to go.

    Not so much, these days.

    Now, if the Leftwit wants to make a point they nearly always argue from authority. This is really hilarious when they try to hold themselves up as the authority in question, considering how often they pretend they want everyone to question authority. It’s even funnier when you point out that Plato’s theory of Philosopher Kings was a failure in his day, has never worked once since, and isn’t likely to work now, no matter how Leftwingnuttish the implementation.

    When faced with any facts based opposition, the “generous” Lefty will attempt to explain her ideas again, ignoring the fact that everyone age 2 and above already understands the ideas perfectly well.

    The not so generous Lefties will move straight to the assumption that those who disagree are either Evil or Stupid or both. When you point out that this is classical Fundamentalist Fallacy on their part, they howl like wounded dogs and start frothing like mad ones.

    And of course there’s the absolute lowest of the low, the Leftardnut that simply cannot refrain from projecting her own secret shame, her hidden all pervasive raaaaacism!, on everyone with whom they disagree.

    I simply do not engage such idiots, except with mockery, as not one has shown me (in the last 14 years online) that they have any ability to grow up and join the adults.

  4. Randy Rager
    August 1st, 2010 @ 10:07 pm

    Leftists are getting damned simple these days. There was a time when the Libertarian or Conservative actually had to be on their game, as the Leftards back then had multiple (sometimes even good) arguments ready to go.

    Not so much, these days.

    Now, if the Leftwit wants to make a point they nearly always argue from authority. This is really hilarious when they try to hold themselves up as the authority in question, considering how often they pretend they want everyone to question authority. It’s even funnier when you point out that Plato’s theory of Philosopher Kings was a failure in his day, has never worked once since, and isn’t likely to work now, no matter how Leftwingnuttish the implementation.

    When faced with any facts based opposition, the “generous” Lefty will attempt to explain her ideas again, ignoring the fact that everyone age 2 and above already understands the ideas perfectly well.

    The not so generous Lefties will move straight to the assumption that those who disagree are either Evil or Stupid or both. When you point out that this is classical Fundamentalist Fallacy on their part, they howl like wounded dogs and start frothing like mad ones.

    And of course there’s the absolute lowest of the low, the Leftardnut that simply cannot refrain from projecting her own secret shame, her hidden all pervasive raaaaacism!, on everyone with whom they disagree.

    I simply do not engage such idiots, except with mockery, as not one has shown me (in the last 14 years online) that they have any ability to grow up and join the adults.

  5. Joe
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 4:37 am

    Oh hey, this is farther down the list of fallacies you skimmed:

    Idea X is popular.
    Therefore, X is correct.

    (That’s the bandwagon appeal… and Boehner used it, in case you weren’t paying attention.)

    And, CGHill, you’ve got a little bit of the composition fallacy going on, and Randy Rager is plagued by the ad hominem and appeal to ridicule, not to mention florid writing. There are books that can help you with that.

    And Mr. Other McCain, you’re not racist because you disagree with liberals, you’re racist because you’re disgusted by interracial marriage. That’s really, really weird, if you slow down and think about it.

    Thinking of yourself as a revolutionary is exactly as sad as seeing someone in a Che t-shirt who clearly thinks they’re cool.

  6. Joe
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 12:37 am

    Oh hey, this is farther down the list of fallacies you skimmed:

    Idea X is popular.
    Therefore, X is correct.

    (That’s the bandwagon appeal… and Boehner used it, in case you weren’t paying attention.)

    And, CGHill, you’ve got a little bit of the composition fallacy going on, and Randy Rager is plagued by the ad hominem and appeal to ridicule, not to mention florid writing. There are books that can help you with that.

    And Mr. Other McCain, you’re not racist because you disagree with liberals, you’re racist because you’re disgusted by interracial marriage. That’s really, really weird, if you slow down and think about it.

    Thinking of yourself as a revolutionary is exactly as sad as seeing someone in a Che t-shirt who clearly thinks they’re cool.

  7. T.L. Davis
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 4:42 am

    Being anti-left is not being anti-intellectual, but it sure pleases the idiots to frame the argument as such.

  8. T.L. Davis
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 12:42 am

    Being anti-left is not being anti-intellectual, but it sure pleases the idiots to frame the argument as such.

  9. Estragon
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 6:54 am

    I think all of them just misunderstand the question.

    If economists agree the economy needs stimulus, they are only seeing the same reality we all do. High unemployment, slow growth, and soaring deficits, all topped off with an impending tax increase certainly show an economy in dire need of stimulus.

    The real question is, “From whence should this stimulus come?” The only real and lasting stimulus is private investment capital. Public spending has never been known to provide any more than a temporary blip. The problem remains how to stimulate this private investment, and our Democratic-led government seems determined to enact every policy which diametrically opposes that goal.

  10. Estragon
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 2:54 am

    I think all of them just misunderstand the question.

    If economists agree the economy needs stimulus, they are only seeing the same reality we all do. High unemployment, slow growth, and soaring deficits, all topped off with an impending tax increase certainly show an economy in dire need of stimulus.

    The real question is, “From whence should this stimulus come?” The only real and lasting stimulus is private investment capital. Public spending has never been known to provide any more than a temporary blip. The problem remains how to stimulate this private investment, and our Democratic-led government seems determined to enact every policy which diametrically opposes that goal.

  11. Dandapani
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 10:50 am

    Government is institutionally ignorant. A bureaucrat in DC, thousands of miles away from something he is managing cannot manage it owing to the physical distance and bureaucratic lethargy. Fact of life. He has no skin in the game to overcome these hurdles, either.

  12. Dandapani
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 6:50 am

    Government is institutionally ignorant. A bureaucrat in DC, thousands of miles away from something he is managing cannot manage it owing to the physical distance and bureaucratic lethargy. Fact of life. He has no skin in the game to overcome these hurdles, either.

  13. Huey
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 1:11 pm

    There are some areas of thought where “authority” is kind of important.

    — The “rest of the story” from the cited reference on the logical fallacy linked in the article:

    “On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.”

    So, either economics is enough of a science that its experts actually know what they’re talking about or it’s not.

    If it is, then every appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy, but a necessity as the rest of humanity (without a sufficient grounding in the science of economics) simply doesn’t and can’t understand the science.

    If it isn’t, then every appeal to authority is not only a fallacy but a misnomer since, there being no science, there can’t be any “authorities.”

    I’m sufficiently convinced that the “science” of economics is as yet immature and, therefore, incapable of predictive power. Patterns of economic behavior of human beings is, at this point, simply incapable of precise quantification. Therefore, any “expert” who makes such predictions will be right approximately as often as a psychic would be.

    So, I’m with Boehner on this one. Instead of listening to a few individuals on how the bulk of our citizens would react to another stimulus (and, therefore, the economy), I’d rather listen to the bulk of our citizens as to how they would react to that stimulus, since, you know…it’s the citizens who will be doing the actual, you know….acting…

  14. Huey
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 9:11 am

    There are some areas of thought where “authority” is kind of important.

    — The “rest of the story” from the cited reference on the logical fallacy linked in the article:

    “On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.”

    So, either economics is enough of a science that its experts actually know what they’re talking about or it’s not.

    If it is, then every appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy, but a necessity as the rest of humanity (without a sufficient grounding in the science of economics) simply doesn’t and can’t understand the science.

    If it isn’t, then every appeal to authority is not only a fallacy but a misnomer since, there being no science, there can’t be any “authorities.”

    I’m sufficiently convinced that the “science” of economics is as yet immature and, therefore, incapable of predictive power. Patterns of economic behavior of human beings is, at this point, simply incapable of precise quantification. Therefore, any “expert” who makes such predictions will be right approximately as often as a psychic would be.

    So, I’m with Boehner on this one. Instead of listening to a few individuals on how the bulk of our citizens would react to another stimulus (and, therefore, the economy), I’d rather listen to the bulk of our citizens as to how they would react to that stimulus, since, you know…it’s the citizens who will be doing the actual, you know….acting…

  15. dad29
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

    Addenda:

    Last week in Wisconsin, Trans’n Sec’y LaHood told Wisconsin residents and taxpayers that the Feds were (in effect) going to shove their high-speed-rail system right up Wisconsin’s ass, like it or not.

    Pfortney Stark also opined that ‘the Feds can do whatever they want to do’ in a townhall meeting.

    Neither of these guys ever heard of “accidents”, of course.

    And no, I haven’t forgotten about all the “czars”–but a combox can’t hold all of the bill of particulars on them….

  16. dad29
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 10:24 am

    Addenda:

    Last week in Wisconsin, Trans’n Sec’y LaHood told Wisconsin residents and taxpayers that the Feds were (in effect) going to shove their high-speed-rail system right up Wisconsin’s ass, like it or not.

    Pfortney Stark also opined that ‘the Feds can do whatever they want to do’ in a townhall meeting.

    Neither of these guys ever heard of “accidents”, of course.

    And no, I haven’t forgotten about all the “czars”–but a combox can’t hold all of the bill of particulars on them….

  17. richard mcenroe
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

    Let’s see… the current crop of elite, trained and educated leaders includes a man who has never held a real job in his life, a man in charge of the treasury who can’t pay his own taxes and presided over the mortgage meltdown, a man who bankrupted the endowment of his Ivy League university… Oh, hell, I’m sold, bring on the monarchy….

  18. richard mcenroe
    August 2nd, 2010 @ 11:01 am

    Let’s see… the current crop of elite, trained and educated leaders includes a man who has never held a real job in his life, a man in charge of the treasury who can’t pay his own taxes and presided over the mortgage meltdown, a man who bankrupted the endowment of his Ivy League university… Oh, hell, I’m sold, bring on the monarchy….