Appeal to Special Authority (The Appeal to ‘I Am’)
If I don’t know about it, it is not knowable
If I don’t know about it, it is not knowable.
A brief reminder to keep an eye out for those who exercise the Appeal to Special Authority. This is also called the Appeal to ‘I Am’, and is plied unconsciously by those persons who conceal the highest conceit of all. These persons are smart enough to not let their grandeur complex surface and reveal itself directly. However, the astute ethical skeptic can detect the rotting of flesh in the waters beneath, by the putrid smell of the fine bubbles rippling amidst the tranquil eddies of their discourse.
Be especially cautious of wasting time with those who ply their trade in ideas, by means of the following affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent rhetorical artifices. Those who have been pampered as the smartest in the room for some period of time, will often fall prey to this temptation.
The Appeals to Special Authority (‘I Am’)
If I don’t know about it, it does not exist.
If I don’t get it, it cannot actually make sense, and therefore no one can get it.
If a viewpoint exists, and I have not debunked it, then it is irrelevant.
If it is found to be true, then I have known it all along, it is old news.
Original Form (Affirming the Consequent):
If it is knowable (P), then I know about it (Q).
I know about it (Q).
Therefore, it is knowable (P).
Contrapositive Form (Denying the Antecedent):
If it is knowable (P), then I know about it (Q).
I do not know about it (~Q).
Therefore, it is not knowable (~P).
Two innate personal positions exist regarding truth:
Truth is a seldom-attained state of inference, derived from deductive logical calculus, inside the prosecution of a critical path of probative questions. Truth is not a destination, nor is it in any way related to me personally.
Truth is an object which exists inside my perception and possession. My objective is to use all available means to secure agreement on this from others.
The above is merely one of the tools handy in spotting the person who subconsciously operates under the second (religious) paradigm.
But be careful of bringing this up to an abuser therein. They will not have heard of this informal fallacy of rhetoric, therefore it is not a valid one. Of course as well, we must first examine our own steps to make sure that we do not begin to fall for this foible in ourselves. It is a temptation for everyone.
The Ethical Skeptic, “Appeal to Special Authority (The Appeal to ‘I Am’)”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 25 Dec 2023; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=78904
Sometimes I can't stop myself from writing, so here are some of my thoughts on why this happens, with a prevalence of narcissism in humanity not being a major reason in my mind as some other comments are suggesting-- and I think the idea of rampant online narcissism is possibly a mistake in reason popularized by Jordan Peterson.. at the very least in that it might unintentionally do these three things: oversimplify our fellow human beings in a way that dehumanizes them, damaging the collective understanding of what it means to be human, and prevent more platonic intimacy and subsequent wellbeing between human beings as a result; which is also not to say there are people that should be avoided for different reasons including narcissistic traits.
One problem with appealing to oneself as an authority is when it is a mirage of language based on constraints. We go about our daily lives speaking in generalizations and absolutes-- rather than in arguments, that are seen as probabilities, where the level of probability is fluid, and defined by intuiting and weighing the reason and evidence we have for each argument-- with the latter being the more analytical mindset. We have limited time, attention, and energy, and going along with that, human language generally appears to work better and faster with less contrasting of arguments and the probabilities of aspects of those arguments being true. So we are biologically and culturally geared towards simpler stances on reality that would theoretically help us with the known base impulses of survival and reproduction, going along with what seems at present, to be a history of humans mostly being hunter-gatherers.
Since it takes more words and time to speak in more nuanced probabilities, sometimes a person can end up looking like they aren't "premise guarding".. not delivering their arguments in a way that shows that they see them as a probability, that's subject to change based on evidence and reason: due to text constraints-- for example on Twitter; or due to their time constraints. And it also seems that for two people to have really novel intellectual discussions, particularly when they are from different specializations of knowledge, sufficient time needs to pass for them to learn each other's differing uses of language, as it might apply to whatever they are talking about-- or else the discussion revolves around figuring that out, or taking offense to it by mistake, rather than maybe something more novel and generally desirable.
But also there is a problem of appealing to oneself as an authority because of fight or flight physiology, going along with cognitive dissonance-- with a person having one or more cherished values that conflicts with new reason and evidence, preventing them from a more analytical mindset. I agree this seems like a conceptual and emotional struggle that it appears everyone is prone to; and to use, and add onto, some ideas from the YouTube channel Navigating Patterns.. a good way of navigating this problem seems to require building more platonic intimacy or communal understanding of each other, while trying to healthily navigate the limitations on how many social interactions and friendships one can have-- and maintaining the capacity for a poetic view of the world rather than purely propositional view of it, in the sense of leaving room for embracing uncertainty, and doing this in a way that is more rooted in love, and faith in love, rather than in fear, to pursue more desirable outcomes in life.
/sarcasm
Look buddy! I am very smrt and I dont know what your (P) and (Q) represent, therefor they mean nothing and you have wasted everyones' time with your OBVIOUS nonsensical diatribe! /end-sarcasm
Ok jokes out of the way. Thanks for the post and a reminder to think more before speaking to people that claim special authority.