In regards to your first paragraph: I understand your sentiments, but speaking of "argument from authority" in specific...
I always took this to mean that we can't believe something just because an expert says it. In other words, an expert should be more correct than the guy on the bus, but an argument needs to stand on its own -- it doesn't really matter who says it.
So you wouldn't be flagged for saying the Nobel physicist is more likely to be correct. You would be flagged if you said he is correct because he's a Nobel physicist.
Is my understanding correct? Disclaimer: I've never taken any Philosophy class. :)
I don't know what you mean by 'just because'. If a Nobel physicist tells me that in 24 dimensions, it's true that you can't frobnicate the fooar while preserving bariconicity, I'm going to believe that indeed, you can't so frobnicate things 'just because' he told me that.
So would I. But why? Because I don't know anything about quantum physics, and he's supposed to have a good grasp of the truth of the subject, so I would just take his word for it (a small act of faith). But his word is not what makes it true or false.
If the most celebrated nutritionist told me that eating nothing but baked beans was the healthiest diet in the world, I wouldn't believe him 'just because' he's an expert. I know enough about the subject of nutrition to consider his Baked Beans idea demented. So, I would ask him to show some sort of evidence.
P.S. I'll be reading more of your Value of Information: 8 examples article. Very interesting!
I always took this to mean that we can't believe something just because an expert says it. In other words, an expert should be more correct than the guy on the bus, but an argument needs to stand on its own -- it doesn't really matter who says it.
So you wouldn't be flagged for saying the Nobel physicist is more likely to be correct. You would be flagged if you said he is correct because he's a Nobel physicist.
Is my understanding correct? Disclaimer: I've never taken any Philosophy class. :)