Authority and groups

[Fred56]

Authority is something that we give more of (in observational terms) to a group than any individual.

Therefore it must be a mistake to assign or invest absolute authority of any kind in a single individual. So why do we do it?

[Mr Skeptic]

We don't.

[Sisyphus]

The OP, paraphrased:

 

We don't A, therefore we shouldn't A. So why do we A?

 

Huh?

[brainpicker]

How about we live in a democracy?

 

Or absolute power corrupts absolutely?

[Fred56]

Authority is something that we give more of (in observational terms) to a group than any individual.

The OP' date=' paraphrased:

We don't A,[/quote']

"Therefore it must be a mistake to assign or invest absolute authority of any kind in a single individual."

therefore we shouldn't A

"So why do we do it?"

So why do we A?

 

Huh?

... looks like someone could use a course in remedial English comprehension? Also predicate logic and what a syllogism is' date=' maybe?

 

So[b'] no-one[/b] has any idea then? Wassa madda you... you stoopid??

[Reaper]

Why don't you be more specific about the point you are trying to make instead of throwing ad hominems around. Give us examples, case studies, etc.

[iNow]

... looks like someone could use a course in remedial English comprehension? Also predicate logic and what a syllogism is, maybe?

 

So no-one has any idea then? Wassa madda you... you stoopid??

Hello pot? Meet the kettle.

[MrMongoose]

Authority is something that we give more of (in observational terms) to a group than any individual.

 

"Therefore it must be a mistake to assign or invest absolute authority of any kind in a single individual.""So why do we do it?"

... looks like someone could use a course in remedial English comprehension? Also predicate logic and what a syllogism is, maybe?

 

So no-one has any idea then? Wassa madda you... you stoopid??

 

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have bolded "more of", rather than highlighting your oppositions point...

[Paralith]

Authority is something that we give more of (in observational terms) to a group than any individual.

Therefore it must be a mistake to assign or invest absolute authority of any kind in a single individual. So why do we do it?

 

To be honest, I don't understand what you're trying to say. So authority means "the power or right to give orders or make decisions," in other words, if we "give authority" to someone, we are basically giving that person the right to be the leader. So you are saying that we (as in humans, I assume) give the right of leadership to groups more often than we give the right of leadership to individuals. Is this for certain? Where are you getting this statement that you're treating like fact? Did some study show this?

 

And even if it is true that we think of groups as leaders more often than we think of individuals as leaders (which I kind of doubt), why does it necessarily follow then that it is a mistake, that it is wrong to think of individuals as leaders? Wrong in terms of what? In terms of what works best to get a group to achieve certain goals?

 

You need to be more precise about what you're talking about. Right now it doesn't make much sense, at least not to me, and by the looks of things, not to many other forum members either.

[Fred56]

So authority means "the power or right to give orders or make decisions," in other words, if we "give authority" to someone

This is a rather restricted definition, what about the authority we attribute to the observations of a group? What do you do if you see something strange or 'out of place'? I would say the first thing is: think about asking another observer if they see it too... this might be because you give more status to the observation of a group?

 

This is the meaning I am using for the word authority (as well as the one you define -which derives from the same concept, I think). You seem to be stuck on the concept of leadership by a single individual or group. Leadership derives from authority, authority is the status assigned to observational ability, which a group has more of (but this isn't carved in stone, exactly)...

 

"Hello pot?"

Hi, well I spose I could be kind of stoopid for assuming I can post something I think is obvious and expect a rational or logical debate instead of perplexity and grabbing at conclusions...

[Paralith]

If I seem to be stuck on anything, it is only because I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. Which I didn't, and thanks to your clarification, now I have a better idea - though I'm still going to ask you again if I understand you correctly.

 

So you are also going by the definition of authority as "an expert whose views are taken as definitive," though this is not exactly what you're describing, I think. You're saying that if I, as an individual, make an observation about the world - say, that peas are green - and I'm not sure if that observation is true, I will check with several people, and if they all also say, "Yep, them peas are green for sure," I'll be more likely to believe my observation is true than if just one person says, "Yes, those peas are definitely and inarguably green." Is that correct?

 

So, to answer to your original question of why we give "authority" (which according to your description is the ability to make correct observations) to single individuals. We usually only do so when we also have additional evidence that this person knows what they're talking about and, in this particular subject at least, are likely to make the most correct observations. For example, I would much prefer to ask a doctor, and not a group of lay people, to make an accurate observation about the identity of a strange growth on my foot. In our culture we know that doctors spend lots of time in medical school learning how to do just this and have probably practiced this skill on many other people.

[1veedo]

So why do we do it?

I wasn't aware that we actually did. Usually people in history who have had at least close to absolute power have seized control themselves -- nobody ever gave it to them.

 

There's a lot more going on than you realize, Fred56. In the US government for example most of the power is held behind the scenes where through a bit of ingenuity and odd circumstances (otherwise called life) people have gained certain amounts of power.

[Fred56]

"an expert whose views are taken as definitive," though this is not exactly what you're describing, I think. You're saying that if I, as an individual, make an observation about the world - say, that peas are green - and I'm not sure if that observation is true, I will check with several people, and if they all also say, "Yep, them peas are green for sure," I'll be more likely to believe my observation is true than if just one person says, "Yes, those peas are definitely and inarguably green." Is that correct?

Yes, the "expert", however, is usually a group. A doctor refers constantly to research and medical findings from the group that investigates this.

 

No scientist works in isolation, and no isolated (individual) observation is given more status that that of a group, unless authority has been invested for whatever reason, in some individual, or subset of individuals (leaders). Unfortunately (or whatever), this also gives them status (power) which they tend to abuse (turn to individual rather than group benefit). But Life is kind of selfish, that way.

(I hope this addresses 1veedo's post also)

[jedaisoul]

Authority is something that we give more of (in observational terms) to a group than any individual. Therefore it must be a mistake to assign or invest absolute authority of any kind in a single individual.

The statement "Therefore it must be a mistake..." does not follow from "Authority is something that we give more of (in observational terms) to a group than any individual". Why does that make it a mistake? Furthermore why must it be a mistake?

 

Calling the alternative a mistake assumes that the former is somehow the "correct" choice. But even if the statement "Authority is something that we give more of (in observational terms) to a group than any individual" is true, it does not follow that we are in any sense "correct" to do so. That has not been shown.

 

So Fred's assertion makes as much sense as "most people dislike sushi, therefore it is a mistake to eat raw fish". It may happen to be true, but there is little logical or causal connection. The reasons for not eating raw fish have little to do with the preference (or otherwise) for eating sushi.

[Fred56]

"There is no logical or causal connection, to the observed behaviour of humans to allow or assign more status to a group observation than their own or any individual observation. This could well be an incorrect thing to do. The fact that we do it does not imply correct or incorrect thinking. Calling the alternative -we don't assign more status to a group observation- a mistake does not lead to the conclusion that we are correct to assign more authority to any group. The reasons for doing this have little to do with preference for assigning authority to any observation, or person or group of observers."

 

I don't believe it.

[Fred56]

Once information has "arrived", it is measured against knowledge and understanding ('philosophy'), the next measurement or observational step, involving a communal mind i.e. the scientific community.

 

Or don't call it philosophising but rather "the application of scientific thinking". Knowledge, belief, objectivity, are all in the realm of scientific enquiry, but all scientists are also philosophers.

 

I think claiming that science is the observational side of the equation, and philosophy the application of pre-existing knowledge/belief to connect the observed information to a worldview (belief system) is perfectly ok.

 

It does, however, probably jar with what most of us understand by "science" and "philosophy" (since the Renaissance, possibly).

 

Most would understand Philosophy as thinking about what thinking is, or what meaning is, or ('gasp') what Science or Philosophy is, and is metaphysical.

 

This is only a convenient distinction, which was probably made to separate religious thematics from scientific endeavour.

 

Now, finally, what would be the meaning of the word "truth" to a modern scientist? Surely not the meaning it would have for a purpose? Surely not the meaning it would have for a [spiritualist] mystic! For the really great and essential fact about the scientific revelation--the most wonderful and most challenging fact--is that [s']cience does not and cannot pretend to be "true" in any absolute sense.

[mooeypoo]

This is only a convenient distinction, which was probably made to separate religious thematics from scientific endeavour.

Finally.

 

See? Was that so hard?

 

Red Herring (wow you have a knack for those) and False Analogies.. I think there's some False Continuum in there, too. I'm getting better.

[Fred56]

No, 'you' are just more convinced that 'you' understand something (some knowledge).

But maybe 'you' don't really, maybe what 'you' think 'you' understand is all just being projected from 'your' own mind. Maybe it's all wrong? Maybe 'you' don't really know a thing...

 

Individual existence (the notion of individual ontology) is possible because of the existence of others. This could mean that if you were the only individual (there were no "others") around to observe, then observation and learning would only be meaningful to 'you', so why bother to "record" it (externally or internally)? In other words the "principle" of knowledge extends beyond the concept of individuality.

...[observation] is measured against knowledge and understanding ('philosophy'), the next measurement or observational step, involving a communal mind...

[Royston]

Is it possible to set up a macro on here, so every time Fred makes a post/thread, the following response automatically appears...

 

Huh?

 

It would save everyone a lot of time.

[Phi for All]

Discussion closed while Fred56 takes a break and ponders if he's in the right place.