is the sum total of scholarship null?
In my previous post I was chewing over whether trying to convince someone to subscribe to your world view is a worthwhile exercise. Often, when trying to, one might make an appeal to authority. The problem is that, it seems every view has had reams of scholarship written defending it. So for any given view, no matter how salient, eloquent, or passionate it might be, there is no doubt somewhere in the world another work of comparable excellence supporting the diametric view.
So the question is: if one considers all works on a topic and assigns each one a value corresponding to its position (for example, materialism:1, idealism:-1), would the sum total be null? That is, does considering the entire scholarship of the philosophical tradition result no view being more acceptable than another?
That makes “appealing to authority” utterly useless. “Ok, you’ve cited a very well respected work. Here’s an equally respected work to the contrary.”
There is a counter-argument to every argument. This is not to say I think debate or discussion is useless, but I think the appeal to “scholarship” can be. Digging through the archives it seems gives us a valueless result when all sides are considered.
tags: argument, null, philosophy, scholarship
Ben,
Is there not a counter argument to your position? If so, what now?
Yes, but my point is that the appeal to authority leaves us no where.
Dr X’s amazing argument – Dr Y’s = no argument
An appeal to authority could very well leave this argument (and that one) moot as you suggest.
So in working with beliefs, I think we really need to look to something other that the legacy of scholarship to give our arguments the lion’s share of their weight.
What’s relevant here and now. What’s powerful here and now. That may be an appeal, but I think so often it’s a cop out.
“Well, you might say this, but this OTHER person says that!”
So? To me, citing that “someone else thinks differently” is not an argument, and is ultimately irrelevant, credentials or not.
It’s basically on par with begging the question… they have credentials because they made these arguments and their arguments have weight because of their credentials.
I also think Ben may have jumped to the conclusion that every argument has a counter-argument, I don’t thats necessarily true. On occasion, things can be evenly matched, but not always, arguments and evidence can be qualified over others.
Yes, it’s a mild generalization, but I’m speaking about philosophy, not anything scientific. For the most part every major player and his best arguments have found an equally compelling objection somewhere else in the world. Nothing has taken the lead in terms of support or acceptance as “truth” in the world among any kind of majority… and this is over the course of 3000+ years.