When people speak as a voice of authority about things they don't really know

[Stevicus]

If someone speaks of a topic or issue as if they hold some sort of special authority or knowledge when it seems clear that they're really not an authority or don't have any more knowledge/expertise than the average person, can they be said to be lying, even if they truly believe that they're speaking the truth?

It can be a religious, political, scientific, or any other kind of topic. This thread was kind of inspired by the other thread entitled "You Are Wrong" (You are wrong! | Religious Forums). Someone saying that someone else is "wrong" has a certain authoritative finality about it, as if the person declaring someone else to be "wrong" is simultaneously claiming to have some sort of absolute special knowledge, even if they may not really know either.

There's so much about our existence, our planet, our universe, and even our own history which is unknown or remains a mystery. There is no absolute 100% certainty about anything, when you really come down to it.

Does this mean that an attitude of certitude is an indicator of mendacity and deceit?

In our culture, many people admire confidence and even a bit of hubris, even if we know deep down that there may be some sense of doubt or uncertainty. Is this a healthy attitude to have? Does this promote recklessness? Or is it better to just "go for it" and throw caution to the four winds?

If an athlete says "I will win" and ends up losing, was he lying all along? Or was he just a fool to think he could win? If he says "I will try to win," that might be more honest, but would that change the result?

 

[PureX]

Not a liar, just a fool.

On the other hand, it should be understood that we are speaking our opinion, even if it's presented with undue surety.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If someone speaks of a topic or issue as if they hold some sort of special authority or knowledge when it seems clear that they're really not an authority or don't have any more knowledge/expertise than the average person, can they be said to be lying, even if they truly believe that they're speaking the truth?

It's negligent misstatement, not necessarily lying, but yes.

If someone holds themselves out as an authority so that people will rely on them, but haven't bothered to confirm that their "authoritive" statements are true, then they've acted unethically.

This is part of why I consider religious proselytizing and most clergy to be unethical... even if they don't use the absolute worst tactics.

It can be a religious, political, scientific, or any other kind of topic. This thread was kind of inspired by the other thread entitled "You Are Wrong" (You are wrong! | Religious Forums). Someone saying that someone else is "wrong" has a certain authoritative finality about it, as if the person declaring someone else to be "wrong" is simultaneously claiming to have some sort of absolute special knowledge, even if they may not really know either.

I see a difference, though: someone can hold a firm position and even express it in a confident way without doing it in a way where they present themselves as an authority or ask others to rely on them.

I think the last point is key: if you wilfully convince others to rely on your opinion, you are responsible for whatever consequences befall them because they relied on your opinion.

It doesn't matter if the harm they suffer isn't something you foresaw: if you ought to have foreseen it, or if you overstated your certainty when you didn't really know, it's your fault that they suffered harm.

 

[Estro Felino]

There's nothing wrong with saying "I believe I am totally right".

What really mystifies me is that there are people who will never admit : "sorry, I was wrong".

I do it. I do say "sorry, I was wrong, and you were right". It is so liberating.

But certain people will never admit they were wrong...it is a psychological mechanism of self-defense, due to a very fragile relationship with their own self. Because admitting that they can be wrong too (as all humans are, since all humans are fallible) would jeopardize this fragile inner balance.

 

[Estro Felino]

There's nothing wrong with saying "I believe I am totally right".

What really mystifies me is that there are people who will never admit : "sorry, I was wrong".

I do it. I do say "sorry, I was wrong, and you were right". It is so liberating.

But certain people will never admit they were wrong...it is a psychological mechanism of self-defense, due to a very fragile relationship with their own self. Because admitting that they can be wrong too (as all humans are, since all humans are fallible) would jeopardize this fragile inner balance.

And unfortunately, I found out something absolutely hideous that goes on among the law professionals. Procurators, attorneys and judges.
Once I spoke with a colleague from law school...and she in a very cynical, cold, brutal manner told me (we were speaking of a very famous judicial case).
"Whenever a procurator realizes that he has arrested and imprisoned two innocent people, he will never admit he was wrong. He will never apologize. On the contrary, he will persevere in that error.
He will keep accusing those innocent people unjustly. Because there cannot be fallible procurators who admit their own flaws".
I told her : "are you serious? This is monstrous. This is against the real and sacred principle of justice I veneer and that made me study law".
She replied: "you live in a parallel world"

 

[Stevicus]

I should also say that this article, which was posted by @sun rise in another thread, also inspired this thread to some degree: The U.S. is a Three Stooges nation, and the Moes are on the rise | Datebook (sfchronicle.com)

As their name suggests, the Stooges presented themselves as three idiots. Each was as stupid as the others. But the key feature of each character was his relationship to his own stupidity. These relationships were very different and made for entirely different personalities.

Curly was from Jupiter. He had no idea he was stupid but didn’t think he was smart. He was unconcerned about such matters. He’d drop to the floor and run sidelong in a circle. He was prone to yelling, “Woo woo woo woo woo!” He was in his own world and fairly happy within it.

Larry, by contrast, had an inkling. He hoped he wasn’t stupid but had a feeling he probably was, and that made him the most melancholy and reflective of the three. He was just trying to get by as best he could.

But Moe — Moe was someone else entirely. Moe was as stupid as his two companions, but he didn’t know it. He was sure that he was smart, and his baseless self-assurance made him a dangerous man. He was so certain of his superior intelligence that he assumed the authority to beat up on the other guys if he thought they needed discipline. And he always thought they needed discipline.

The significance of this is obvious: We are living in one of those unfortunate periods of American history in which the Moes are ascendant.

Indeed, we appear to have a whole political party whose mission is to cater to Moes and foster the creation of more Moes. It tells them: “Don’t believe science, don’t believe experts, don’t feel bad about not knowing anything because you know everything already. And what is this everything? It’s everything we just told you! And you understood because you’re so brilliant!”

The manipulation of this message is transparent, but not if you’re a Moe. If you’re a Moe, it’s what you’ve been waiting to hear all your life. The message has appeal. It certainly has lots more gut-level appeal than that of the other party, whose half-hearted pitch is to the Larrys of America: “Sure, you’re uncertain. So are we. But we’re all stronger together.”

Moe is scary. He’s stupid, he thinks he’s brilliant, and he has a ridiculous haircut. There’s no limit to the power he might attain. He thinks his ignorance is a form of purity. He thinks his stupidity isn’t stupidity but a rare gift for perceiving the simple essence of things. And because he is convinced of this, he is immune to thought and reason. To even begin to think, he’d have to climb down from his erroneous self-conception. And what could persuade him to do that? Probably nothing short of waking up in a destroyed country and finding himself up to his knees in rubble.

But you know what? Larry is a little scary, too, because you worry that he’ll always doubt himself too much to be effectual, and that he’ll never really have enough energy to confront Moe, or even to acknowledge the real problems we face. There may be a lot more Larrys than Moes, but the Moes get organized.

As for Curly, he’s not getting involved. He’ll never vote. You can register him, but he won’t show up.

Anyway, I feel like I’ve seen this comedy short before. It’s even less funny the second time.

 

[F1fan]

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is certainly part of this:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of a task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. Some researchers also include in their definition the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

We are certainly seeing more of this. We see severe denial in many creationists who declare that evolution is false, and it's because their religious beliefs MUST be true. No facts, no data, no tests, no arguments based on evidence. Just blatant arrogance and ignorance at work, as if they are God themselves.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If someone speaks of a topic or issue as if they hold some sort of special authority or knowledge when it seems clear that they're really not an authority or don't have any more knowledge/expertise than the average person, can they be said to be lying, even if they truly believe that they're speaking the truth?

It can be a religious, political, scientific, or any other kind of topic. This thread was kind of inspired by the other thread entitled "You Are Wrong" (You are wrong! | Religious Forums). Someone saying that someone else is "wrong" has a certain authoritative finality about it, as if the person declaring someone else to be "wrong" is simultaneously claiming to have some sort of absolute special knowledge, even if they may not really know either.

There's so much about our existence, our planet, our universe, and even our own history which is unknown or remains a mystery. There is no absolute 100% certainty about anything, when you really come down to it.

Does this mean that an attitude of certitude is an indicator of mendacity and deceit?

In our culture, many people admire confidence and even a bit of hubris, even if we know deep down that there may be some sense of doubt or uncertainty. Is this a healthy attitude to have? Does this promote recklessness? Or is it better to just "go for it" and throw caution to the four winds?

If an athlete says "I will win" and ends up losing, was he lying all along? Or was he just a fool to think he could win? If he says "I will try to win," that might be more honest, but would that change the result?

Depends. You can be an authority based on your own experiences.

 

[F1fan]

If an athlete says "I will win" and ends up losing, was he lying all along? Or was he just a fool to think he could win? If he says "I will try to win," that might be more honest, but would that change the result?

As an athlete myself I can say that having a high level of confidence can help push the self beyond what they would do if less confident. And it depends on the athlete. In pro bike racing if Wout van Aert claims to win a sprint on the day's race it would be highly probable since he's won so many sprints, and the guy is massively powerful and confident. If it was Caleb Ewen making the claim, it would sound dubious since his form is well below other sprinters racing the Tour de France.

 

[F1fan]

Depends. You can be an authority based on your own experiences.

I notice you don't accept the authority of believers who have expertise within their own belief of religious experiences. You know they tell we atheists that "we don't get it" because we haven't had whatever they believe they experienced. Under questioning you and me can reveal they have a very dubious set of claims based on dubious assumptions they make, and this means they don't have any authority at all, just a bias they don't acknowledge they have.

 

[JustGeorge]

I don't think a person is lying if they don't know they're spewing nonsense. It just makes them an idiot Lying is maliciously telling untruths, probably to gain some favor/prestige or the other, or possibly to get out of trouble. A person consciously does it. Being proud of mistaken information isn't lying to me, because the person has no idea what they're saying is untrue.

I should also say that this article, which was posted by @sun rise in another thread, also inspired this thread to some degree: The U.S. is a Three Stooges nation, and the Moes are on the rise | Datebook (sfchronicle.com)

Yes, the world is full of aggressive idiots with bad haircuts indeed...

 

[MikeF]

If someone speaks of a topic or issue as if they hold some sort of special authority or knowledge when it seems clear that they're really not an authority or don't have any more knowledge/expertise than the average person, can they be said to be lying, even if they truly believe that they're speaking the truth?

It can be a religious, political, scientific, or any other kind of topic. This thread was kind of inspired by the other thread entitled "You Are Wrong" (You are wrong! | Religious Forums). Someone saying that someone else is "wrong" has a certain authoritative finality about it, as if the person declaring someone else to be "wrong" is simultaneously claiming to have some sort of absolute special knowledge, even if they may not really know either.

There's so much about our existence, our planet, our universe, and even our own history which is unknown or remains a mystery. There is no absolute 100% certainty about anything, when you really come down to it.

Does this mean that an attitude of certitude is an indicator of mendacity and deceit?

In our culture, many people admire confidence and even a bit of hubris, even if we know deep down that there may be some sense of doubt or uncertainty. Is this a healthy attitude to have? Does this promote recklessness? Or is it better to just "go for it" and throw caution to the four winds?

If an athlete says "I will win" and ends up losing, was he lying all along? Or was he just a fool to think he could win? If he says "I will try to win," that might be more honest, but would that change the result?

Sometimes we feel our beliefs require the acceptance and/or cooperation of others, and for better or worse, some have learned that taking an authoritative or commanding stance actually influences or sways people. In short, it works.

Since it works, if opposite views are being advocated, each polar opposite grows louder, more insistent, and hyperbolic to counter the other in an attempt to move the movable masses to their side.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does this mean that an attitude of certitude is an indicator of mendacity and deceit?

I'm generally certain that certainty is generally as problematic as broad generalizations.

And I'm certain that labelling all those who hold firm convictions as intentional liars is either thoughtless, bigoted, or both.

 

[sun rise]

Depends. You can be an authority based on your own experiences.

On that basis, my experience is that the right hates America and wants to turn this country into a pale Christian imitation of the Taliban. And my authoritative statement is based on my experiences.

 

[RestlessSoul]

A little bit of humility goes a long way, and makes authority more palatable to everyone. This is perhaps the rarest and most underrated of all human virtues.

 

[Augustus]

There's so much about our existence, our planet, our universe, and even our own history which is unknown or remains a mystery. There is no absolute 100% certainty about anything, when you really come down to it.

Does this mean that an attitude of certitude is an indicator of mendacity and deceit?

It's context dependent.

On a forum like this, people are often offering their opinion on matters that obviously have a degree of subjectivity or cannot be definitively proven. They assume others can recognise this and it would get tiresome if everyone specifically qualified every statement they made. They may choose to do this at times, but failing to do so is not deceitful.

In a more formal setting or one in which precision is expected it could, at times, be considered improper though.


(Also, when you have a reasonable, but not expert, knowledge of something, you can often know that someone is wrong in their argument while also being aware that you are not entirely sure what is right)

 

[syo]

If someone speaks of a topic or issue as if they hold some sort of special authority or knowledge when it seems clear that they're really not an authority

Use your ears and not your imagination.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm generally certain that certainty is generally as problematic as broad generalizations.

And I'm certain that labelling all those who hold firm convictions as intentional liars is either thoughtless, bigoted, or both.

Well, I guess it's a good thing I didn't label anyone that way.

 

[Stevicus]

It's context dependent.

On a forum like this, people are often offering their opinion on matters that obviously have a degree of subjectivity or cannot be definitively proven. They assume others can recognise this and it would get tiresome if everyone specifically qualified every statement they made. They may choose to do this at times, but failing to do so is not deceitful.

I don't agree that it would get tiresome, especially if someone really didn't have 100% certainty. If you don't know something, I don't see how there's any shame in saying "I don't know," yet some people see it as worse. I remember one time at a former employer they would say to "never tell a customer you don't know," as if it's some great transgression. This is a part of our culture, where saying "sorry" or "I don't know" is seen as a sign of weakness, so some people (especially in public situations) will put on a facade of confidence, even if they're not really sure.

 

[Stevicus]

Use your ears and not your imagination.

Is that supposed to be an answer or advice?