Debate and Authority

People, who know me, will confirm it, I’m sure, I talk a lot. Sometimes, however, I sit back and just watch. Yes, watch, not listen. That usually happens when I’m not really interested in the contents of the debate. I like to listen to people argue their position and listen to what they say and even more, how they say it.
I was present at one such meeting today, among some very intelligent people. What caught my attention, however, was the fact it’s sometimes more important who’s making the argument than the actual argument made. Authority of the speaker transfers itself to the authority of the argument. It’s an argumentative fallacy, to give argument more or less merit, simply based on the popularity of the person making the argument.
The really interesting question is what that means for the value of the conclusion reached. An argument could be made that a more popular person is usually smarter and therefore it’s only natural that that person’s arguments should prevail. I don’t buy it. I think most people use their authority to advance their lines of argumentation, to varying degrees of success. I do not think it’s a conscious process for most. The result, however, is a conclusion that is much more likely to be according to the opinion of some people, regardless of its intrinsic value.
I like to argue for freedom of expression among equals on a state level, so it seems fitting that the first post of this blog is about that same freedom applied on a small scale, on the level of a few people discussing something over a beer. It is essential to understand that added value of arguments does not come from the authority of the speaker, even on this very simple level. Quality of the debate is proportionate to the equality of participants, on all levels. Submissiveness to authority, without any rational reason whatsoever, is the first step away from the truth.