Copperbrain.png
Courtier's Reply

From RationalWiki

(Redirected from Courtier's reply)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Courtier's Reply is a term popularized by biologist/blogger PZ Myers for a logical fallacy that essentially boils down to: "But you haven't read enough on it!"[1]

Contents

[edit] Origins

It derives from a supposed spin doctor for the naked emperor in the fable The Emperor's New Clothes. Essentially it is a form of intellectual bullying that questions a person's right to rebut an argument on the grounds that the rebutter lacks experience with the subject at issue.

This argument is particularly favored by anyone who fancies themselves more qualified than others on a subject. Postmodernists in particular have used it to defend the more impenetrable works of leading lights such as Derrida, Lacan, et al., from criticism from "outsiders" who "just don't understand." Meanwhile, evolution deniers (as well as denialists of other stripes) use it against scientists in an attempt to sidestep forensic evidence such as fossils and traceable physical and chemical changes in rocks and other matter.

One famous early example was allegedly said by Isaac Newton[2] to a skeptical Edmund Halley regarding astrology - "I, sir, have studied it; you have not."

[edit] In response to The God Delusion

The first instance of the use of this phrase was in response to criticism of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins; a standard criticism was that Dawkins had not studied theology and was therefore unqualified to discuss evidence for or against the existence of God. This is fallacious because, although as a non-theologian he is not technically qualified to discuss the nature of God, as a scientist he is extremely qualified to discuss the nature of evidence. Moreover, any discussion on the nature of God (as anything other than a hypothetical entity) depends entirely upon first proving the existence of God as a real and tangible object.

Dawkins himself once said, when referring to the fact that he is not a theologian:[3]

"Most of us happily disavow fairies, astrology, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology."

[edit] Misapplication

This particular fallacy, however, is quite easy to misuse. For example, some attempt to use it to attack people who validly complain that their ideological opponent is willfully ignorant, and is making no effort to educate him or herself.[4] It's particularly common among Islamophobes, who attempt to blame all violence in the Middle East on the monolithic institution of "Islam" ignoring all political or historical factors, and with absolutely no knowledge of the wide diversity of beliefs among those who identify themselves as part of the religion of Islam. Similarly, the discussion of science - when dragged into the public domain by politics or ideology (witness evolution and global warming) - is indeed plagued by ignorant loud-mouths too vain to listen to other people. For instance, the standard creationist refrain of "where are the transitional fossils?" is the product of wilful ignorance, and one would be justified in pointing this out - that is, that they haven't read enough on the topic to speak on it with any claim of expertise. Similarly with global warming deniers, who ask why no one has thought about the sun's impact on Earth's temperatures (this is also JAQing off) - they have evidently not "read enough about it".

Perhaps a distinction between a Courtier's Reply and a genuine accusation of ignorance is that the latter normally has an intent to enlighten - for instance, a scientist may point out that we have thousands of transitional fossils - while the former is a short-circuit on debate by implicitly claiming expertise that should simply be taken for granted and not questioned in its claims. This may be tempting for many scientists when confronted by proud and boastful ignorance, but it is still an argument from authority.

[edit] See also

[edit] Footnotes

  1. Pharyngula - The Courtier's Reply. The blog column by Myers that popularized the term.
  2. Newton is alleged by some to have had an ardent interest in astrology. This is hotly disputed by others - as is the quote.
  3. Dawkins on Theology. video on YouTube
  4. The Courtier's Reply, The Uncredible Hallq
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
support