Questioning Credentials

The CAGW debate has sometimes been an emotionally charged exchange of views between warmists and skeptics that has often been punctuated with the use of logically invalid arguments. Ad hominems are a regular occurrence as are attempts to misdirect attention away from the claims being made to the character of the claimer(s).

Sometimes a speaker’s credentials are impugned in an attempt to shut them up or to convince others not to put much import in what they say because they are not qualified to speak on the matter. It is used to misdirect attention from the claim under discussion to the education of the speaker. It is a variation on the ‘who said’ argument.

Was it Aquinas who advised: Ask not who made the claim ask if the claim is true. If it  were possible to resurrect him and bring Aquinas forward into our age it is probable that he would like to add two corollaries to his epithet. Ask not how many made the claim ask if the claim is true. And finally, ask not who funded the claim ask if the claim is true. The who, how many and who funded subjects are red herrings designed to draw your attention away from whether the claim is true. To employ these arguments as valid on a logic exam would attract a failing grade.

Who would use such invalid arguments? Why would they need them?

This argument is particularly irksome to me as it implies that only experts can have a correct opinion on the matter in question. Is it used because the objector is feeling insecure about his ability to defend his position?

The argument against the ‘argument from credentials’ is to point out that not everyone is a chicken and may not know how to lay an egg but as long as one’s nose is in working order anyone can tell when one is rotten.

Just because a person does not possess a Phd degree does not disqualify her remarks as being without merit. Take the example of the African teenager whose observation solved two problems at once. The solution had not occurred to any Phds who have studied lions. The teen’s invention saves the lions from being hunted and shot and it protected his family’s livestock upon which they depend for their living. Your education does not matter. It is your thoughts that matter and they must be taken at their face value and not pre-judged based on who utters them. His invention allows lions and humans to live together in harmony. What could be better than that? No Phd required.

Freedom of speech is not reserved to experts. It is available to all and all comments on a topic are to be valued even if they turn out to be wrong. People who go down dark alleys and find a dead end provide a useful service to the rest of us. We don’t have to make the same mistake so our time and efforts can be better directed elsewhere. Mistakes confer knowledge that is useful to the tribe at large.

Neither your education nor your years of experience in the field necessarily qualify your opinions as inviolate. Anyone, including a Kenyan teenager, can add to the sum total of human knowledge.

That is one reason that freedom of speech is so valuable a human right. The greater our population the larger the number of minds we have working on our problems. Solutions can come from anywhere including the ‘Lion Lights’ of an astute Kenyan, Richard Turere, 13.

An educated fool is still a fool. The possession of credentials doesn’t guarantee they come with common sense or with an accurate study.

Let us keep the focus on the evidence. Let us hear and see what Mother Nature is doing. After all, it is only her credentials that count.