Impossibility of arguing with authority.

[Impenitent]

... Russell and his idiotic belief in windowless monads ...

Where did Russell argue for this?

in a drapery shop?

-Imp

[RCSaunders]

... Russell and his idiotic belief in windowless monads ...

Where did Russell argue for this?

Windowless monads were the invention of Leibniz, whom Russel admired, especially for what he called Leibniz, "mathematical logic." Though Russel criticized Liebniz monadology, he wrote: "... his monads can still be useful as suggesting possible ways of viewing perception .... What I, for my part, think best in his theory of monads is his two kinds of space, one subjective, in the perceptions of each monad, and, one objective, consisting of the assemblage of points of view of the various monads. This, I believe, is still useful in relating perception to physics." [A History of Western Philosophy, page 596]

[Scott Mayers]

If someone doesn't understand their own view, but has it on authority, it is impossible to use reason with them. Since, what they have is the jocund pleasure of the possession of the right to despise whoever disagrees with the authority. Only those who understand their views are movable by giving reasons. Usually, in this respect, the discussion never becomes dialectic, but rather serves to immunize the one with the view based on authority from reason as such. This is the case, for example, with all followers of various schools of thought political, scientific/philosophical or otherwise who merely have an inkling of the meaning of the teaching, without genuinely having mastered it. However, the pseudos of the mere inkling is not simply negative. It shows an inclination which may be healthy, a whiff of the truth without the attainment of it. A few feet up a snowy peak, but not the peak itself. In the attainment there may be, to be sure, only a relative truth, the prospect of a false peak, which is to say, only a more powerful understanding than is usually to be found corresponding, in the best cases, to the disputes among the greatest minds. Whether a supreme mind would ever be found, a mind possessed of simple truth, or is to be expected, is a dark question.

I'm just requoting your OP but read enough of some of the ones that follow to get what you mean and agree.

Here is a suggested example:

There is an old-wive's tale that I heard that seems to go against rational thinking regarding boiling water. The 'tale' is passed on that one should begin with COLD water to boil rather than HOT water. But the actual history came from science but those who passed the conclusion on had not passed on the rationale for why this 'should' be done. The reason came from the fact that hot water heaters tend to release certain heavy metal toxins, like lead. When I first heard the myth minus the reasoning, it was suggested as though water boils quicker from the colder state. This odd conclusion without the reasoning is justly questionable and while those who both KNOW the reasoning and those who FOLLOW the behavior on faith regardless of the explanation are in sync with each other's conclusion, the ones who lack a proper rationale for the faith are not relevant to the 'supporting consensus' as authorities.

[Lacewing]

If someone doesn't understand their own view, but has it on authority, it is impossible to use reason with them. Since, what they have is the jocund pleasure of the possession of the right to despise whoever disagrees with the authority. Only those who understand their views are movable by giving reasons. Usually, in this respect, the discussion never becomes dialectic, but rather serves to immunize the one with the view based on authority from reason as such. This is the case, for example, with all followers of various schools of thought political, scientific/philosophical or otherwise who merely have an inkling of the meaning of the teaching, without genuinely having mastered it. However, the pseudos of the mere inkling is not simply negative. It shows an inclination which may be healthy, a whiff of the truth without the attainment of it. A few feet up a snowy peak, but not the peak itself. In the attainment there may be, to be sure, only a relative truth, the prospect of a false peak, which is to say, only a more powerful understanding than is usually to be found corresponding, in the best cases, to the disputes among the greatest minds. Whether a supreme mind would ever be found, a mind possessed of simple truth, or is to be expected, is a dark question.

True!

So many people on these online forums present themselves in such a way. Revealing that they're not here to explore ideas or to expand on what they think they already know, they're here to represent their particular views as an authority, which their inconsistencies and dishonest behavior show to be missing the mark of the greater authority. I've often thought they're really doing a disservice to the authority they claim to represent. But they DANCE ON...as if nobody has noticed!

And yes, "only those who understand their views are movable"! Rigidity is an obvious sign of a desperate, clinging, manipulated delusion. Interacting with that broadens awareness for oneself by considering the truths that such an authority denies/avoids, and highlights what is obviously NOT true, as well as providing some fun by laughing at the foolish and static games that humans play in service to their egos.

[TheVisionofEr]

the ones who lack a proper rationale for the faith are not relevant to the 'supporting consensus' as authorities

I don't follow your point.

[TheVisionofEr]

I've often thought they're really doing a disservice to the authority they claim to represent.

I agree. This is why one can't dismiss the teaching by dismissing its worst students or adherents.

Rigidity is an obvious sign of a desperate, clinging, manipulated delusion.

This isn't necessarily the case. The view could be true (or at least to a reasonable standard), and something that could be laid down with a minute train of difficult reasoning which someone once understood or somewhere still does. One could cling in correct faith, but without being able to communicate it either to oneself or another.

In this sense I emphasis the "pseudos." As a possible condition for improvement.

[Scott Mayers]

the ones who lack a proper rationale for the faith are not relevant to the 'supporting consensus' as authorities

I don't follow your point.

Those who lack their own understanding, even if they 'support' something rational, are still using 'faith' and if you were to take the collective of those who take a shared point of view, the ones who side out of faith alone, should be ignored as part of the 'consensus'.

For example, if I support the Evolution but do not actually understand it, I might represent a 'vote' on the correct side of the issue but should not be considered any different than someone who is against Evolution who defends their side by faith also.

If 98% of people who side with the 'correct' science only do so by faith while the 2% remaining were the only ones who KNOW by understanding, that 98% in faith of Evolution are no different than the 100% against it. So if these views were equally split 50/50 in the population, only 1% of the population are rationally correct about Evolution, even if their supporting base is 50% of the whole.

[And can you please quote who you are responding to? We do not get notification and are forced to read and guess who said what. Either have the courtesy others would give to you or I will stop reading your content altogether, regardless of how potentially interesting you could be. Thank you.]

[TheVisionofEr]

Scott Mayers

Those who lack their own understanding, even if they 'support' something rational, are still using 'faith' and if you were to take the collective of those who take a shared point of view, the ones who side out of faith alone, should be ignored as part of the 'consensus'.

I see what you mean although I don’t agree. There is seldom or never this pure case of the depreciatory meaning you give to “faith.” We usually know something, and then we know also that people we trust or believe to know their stuff back a view, and we also may know quite a bit but not as much as the leading experts. The issue is often of an attraction to a point of view, which could be called an “emotional bias” which extend also to the greatest experts on some subject matter, who, themselves, must in some sense act on faith. As for instance with the wave theory of light which about 1898 was said be humanly proved beyond any normal doubt, as over against the old corpuscular view. Then, Einstein challenged the acceptance of it and today, as is everywhere known, both views are held. Both views must be “on faith” in some sense.