Refutation of Authority
There are two ways of undermining your opponent's use of authorities, either by an ad hominem attack on his specific authorities, or by providing counter-authorities. Further, there are at least six different kinds of ad hominem attack upon authority.
First, if a man is quoted as an authority and at the same time is known to have opinions that are inconsistent with the appeals to pity, ad populum, or precedent used by your opponent, then you should pounce upon this inconsistency.
Second, if the alleged expert belongs to a group or exponses a cause to which you know the audience is opposed or hostile, then undermine the authority by use of guilt by association.
Third, an expert may be undermined by pointing out the distinction between theory and practice. Lots of things sound good in theory, and then a complete flop in practice. Moreover, we all know that the experts produced by our opponent are people who live in ivory towers (i.e., they teach at colleges or universities) far removed from reality.
Fourth, any authority who deals with extreme abstractions can be undermined by stressing the distinction between theory and facts. Many of them are purely theoretical.
Fifth, as a last ditch tactic against any expert, you should engage in a general attack on all expertise. Here you can discount or dismiss an expert's knowledge by appealing to a more general truth.
Suppose you are dealing with an alleged medical expert whose testimony is not to your liking. You may point out that knowledge in general is highly uncertain. And if knowledge in general is uncertain, then surely some particular kind of alleged knowledge, even medical knowledge is uncertain. Finally, you might even hint at the fact that there is a conspiracy among all of your opponent's experts, especially if they agree.
The other general form of attack against expertise and authority is to provide counter-experts. There are two possibilities here as well. First, if you feel that you have been successful in undermining the audience's confidence in your opponent's experts, then introduce your own experts who will support your case. Second, if you had to use the fifth method outlined previously - a general critique of all authority and expertise - then introduce counter-experts not necessarily as supports for your case, but simply for effect. Surely if all of these experts disagree, what is the use of using experts at all Ridicule is the final weapon here.
First, if a man is quoted as an authority and at the same time is known to have opinions that are inconsistent with the appeals to pity, ad populum, or precedent used by your opponent, then you should pounce upon this inconsistency.
Second, if the alleged expert belongs to a group or exponses a cause to which you know the audience is opposed or hostile, then undermine the authority by use of guilt by association.
Third, an expert may be undermined by pointing out the distinction between theory and practice. Lots of things sound good in theory, and then a complete flop in practice. Moreover, we all know that the experts produced by our opponent are people who live in ivory towers (i.e., they teach at colleges or universities) far removed from reality.
Fourth, any authority who deals with extreme abstractions can be undermined by stressing the distinction between theory and facts. Many of them are purely theoretical.
Fifth, as a last ditch tactic against any expert, you should engage in a general attack on all expertise. Here you can discount or dismiss an expert's knowledge by appealing to a more general truth.
Suppose you are dealing with an alleged medical expert whose testimony is not to your liking. You may point out that knowledge in general is highly uncertain. And if knowledge in general is uncertain, then surely some particular kind of alleged knowledge, even medical knowledge is uncertain. Finally, you might even hint at the fact that there is a conspiracy among all of your opponent's experts, especially if they agree.
The other general form of attack against expertise and authority is to provide counter-experts. There are two possibilities here as well. First, if you feel that you have been successful in undermining the audience's confidence in your opponent's experts, then introduce your own experts who will support your case. Second, if you had to use the fifth method outlined previously - a general critique of all authority and expertise - then introduce counter-experts not necessarily as supports for your case, but simply for effect. Surely if all of these experts disagree, what is the use of using experts at all Ridicule is the final weapon here.
Comments