Along the same insightful thoughts as Jamie Clubb, I would direct you to Author Showbiz Dave's thread posted on Feb. 27, 2009
I found this fascinating quote today:
Very often con-theos are pseudosceptics by design. They start with a preconceived conclusion and then progress with a confirmation bias. Such an approach means that they are prone to nitpick for details they feel contradict the established view and support their own. Often in the recording martial arts and circus history I have noticed that too much has been provided by anecdotal evidence and, worse still, qualified by the appeal to authority logical fallacy argument. This is why I don't like to see any historical figure to be presented in a saintly or devilish light. I want "warts 'n all" accounts so that I can humanize the figure and get closer to the truth.Jamie Clubb, Jamie Clubb - author of "The Legend of Salt and Sauce", Mar 2009
You should read the whole article.
Wikipedia
An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the source asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]
It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to syllogistic logic, because the validity of a syllogism is independent of the qualities of the source putting it forward. The converse case is an ad hominem attack: to imply that a claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have detailed knowledge of a great many topics, we must 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, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.
Posts
4 comments:
Now Wade - are you sure that's not Marty Feldman?????
I agree, we should definitely take notice of those with more valid experience. It is how we learn and I am big on respecting my elders. However, I think it is a tribute to them that we don't clone ourselves on them, but make the distinction between influence and inspiration. In martial arts I honoured those who broke the mold by setting up activities where I could test what they were arguing.
Jamie,
That thought is exactly what I told a young college last year, when he wanted aid in training a 3 tiger hind leg walk. We honor our inspiration by taking what they have given us, and improving on it. When I saw Charly Baumann do 6 rollovers, I honored him by doing 8, and after learning from GGW, I honored him by doing 3 hindleg walks instead of copying his two. I know for sure of at least one young trainer in Europe today, who has taken the teachings of your father, and honored him by taking it to the next level. That is what greatness/inspiration/teaching is about. If you take what you have been given by their teaching/example and just emulate or clone the craft/profession/art never improves beyond that point. To realize that "secrets" of the great riding masters of the 16th century are still practiced today with great improvement in the dressage field is indeed humbling. That they still study today at West Point, the military tactics of Sun Tzu, "The Art of War" written in 476-221 BCE and the teachings of his descendant, Sun Bin is a testament to respecting elders. Will we ever stop learning and improving on the teachings of a Winston Churchill?
Wade
Good points, Wade. I agree completely. There is an important role for the past, the present and future. We dishonour either of these at our peril. They should work in harmony.
The trouble is the world likes a beginning, a middle and an end. They want absolutes, which is why people get annoyed with genuine historians and scientists. It is far more comfortable to copy someone and then shout "Heresy!" when we dare to challenge or change it. And yet, this is the spirit of evolution. The trouble is no one can really clone another - in fact, in literal terms, the scientific real clone doesn't even necessarily look like its genetic doner! (now that should have been a clue) What happens is a tradition builds up, a stagnant and slavish following, which ultimately revels itself to be hipocritical and contradictory. They try to copy, but fail and even if they superficially resemble the person they are copying everyone sees that it is just a shell and is not an extension of their personality.
By the way, on a tangent off honouring history I recently posted an article that also discusses how we should look at history http://jamieclubb.blogspot.com/2009/03/forgotten-fame-salt-and-sauce-meet.html
Post a Comment