Methods Of Inquiry

Part III​

The Two Types of Authority​

​

We have seen that Faith in any Belief that is not arrived at independently, is based on an Authoritarian source.
We will look at Faith derived from personal internal sources later.

Now we must look at the two types of Authoritarian Faith.

The first is Dogmatic Authority.

The term Dogmatism refers to laying claim to knowledge without a critical examination of the methods used to acquire that knowledge.
Dogmatists accept self evident, intuitive truths, from an Authority source, without questioning the validity of those truths; or they create an elaborate chain of reasoning that can not be examined but supposedly supports the intuitive truths.

In short, we have Faith in the Beliefs presented by the Dogmatic Authority even though there is no way to examine the process by which the conclusion has been reached.

The second is Expert Authority.

With Expert Authority we are again relying on an Authority but this time we are able to examine the process by which the Authoritarian Truth has been reached. The only thing that would stop us from an examination of the process would be our own lack of time, effort, opportunity, or capacity to do so.

We have Faith in the Beliefs presented by an Expert Authority because we can examine the process by which they were reached, but due to the complexity of modern society we are unable to examine every Belief our-self.

While either type of Authority may have originated through the Intuition and/or mental facilities of an individual or individuals, neither offers us the opportunity to exercise our own intellectual faculties, as in the first it is not possible and in the latter we do not make the effort.

Next is Intuition.​

 

Comments, questions, discussions, pointing out of idiotic statements by me, etc.; are welcome.

 

I think maybe you are addressing two different aspects. One is the curriculum or individual, the other the institution. While we may have faith, or belief in the quality of an education granted by Yale, as an institution, that doesn't mean we automatically have faith, or believe, that everyone who has ever attended Yale has achieved the exact same level of education or is capable of developing the same level of curriculum on a particular subject.

 

Part IV​

Intuition​

​

With the two types of Authority illustrated above, we saw that we must forgo independent rational inquiry and submit to an outside source.
We do not exercise our own intellectual faculties but rely on another individual or organization for our Faith in a particular belief.

So too, Intuition does not rely on rational thought but on Immediate Awareness.
We when intuit something we do not seek for proof or evidence; what we know, or believe is "sell-evident". Indeed, if we find that we must seek for proof or evidence, then what we believe is not self-evident as we must look elsewhere for justification.
If we claim to know something by a "sixth sense", we could construe that as a form of Intuition unless we then look for outside evidence of proof.

But Intuition is an individual Truth which may vary for person to person. What I Intuit as true, you may Intuit as false.
Worse we have no way of determining who is correct. If we offer proof that our Intuition is the correct one, then it is no longer self-evident as we have now offered an outside proof.

Thus all that an Intuited Truth, or Belief can do is give an individual a feeling of certainty that can not be verified by others without introducing a further means of Inquiry.

 

Initially we rely on the diploma because we have Faith in the Authority of the institution.
Then, ideally, it is up to the graduate to demonstrate our initial Faith in the institution by his or her Authority instilled by that institution.

 

So now I have to take a break because I'm wondering if I've backed myself into a corner, I've left no place for the use of our own intellect.

I listed the sources of Faith in our Beliefs as:

Dogmatic Authority
Expert Authority
Intuition

And I stated that Dogmatic Authority allows for no critical examination by the individual intellect, instead we rely on someone else or some organization to answer our inquiry.
Expert Authority allows for Critical examination by the individual intellect, but for one reason or another we don't exercise that option, and again we rely on someone else or some organization.
And Intuition relies on immediate awareness, before an intellectual analysis takes place.

So it seems that we have to look elsewhere for some method of answering our inquiries that does depend on the use of our own intellect.

So in the next section I will try to determine how we develop Faith in our Beliefs by the Empirical Method.
I believe (note the use of the word "believe") that Rationalism would be covered under the heading of Intuition, so I will not go there. If anyone differs, as to that, we can discuss it.

 

By fiat as in "an arbitrary order or decree".

 

Part V​

Intellectual Analysis​

​

As we have seen that Authority and Intuition preclude the use of the Intellect, we must now investigate what happens when the Intellect is used to support or develop Faith in any Beliefs we may hold.

If instead we choose to support or develop our Faith in our Beliefs by another means, we must go beyond the subjective and look to the objective.
We must observe those things that are external to us as recognized by our senses. Then we may begin to consider, in an Intellectual manner the meaning of what those senses have conveyed. We compare and contrast those observations with other observations and reach rational conclusions about what we have experienced.

But as the intellect is an internal, subjective activity, how can we be sure that any reasoning that we may reach by its use is correct?
Intuition is also a personal subjective activity but it differs from the intellect in that no thought process takes place in regards to analysis and we have seen that it lacks a means of verification. It also arises without any external source.
The same could be said of Authority. There is no way to verify its beliefs, as intellectual activity is abandoned so that verification is not possible, and we disregard or at least have no way of verifying any external source.

At least by considering elements outside of our own personal being we have broadened our view to that which is beyond our individual self. We observe that which is other and we develop Faith in our understanding of those observations and come to Believe that that understanding is correct.

But what if we have been deceived by our observations? When we use our sense of sight to view a stick protruding above the surface of a body of water, we note that it bends below the surface of that water. However, when we run our hand down the length of the stick our sense of touch tells us that it is straight.
So how can we be sure that our senses are conveying a true picture of the world?
Further, if our senses can be fooled without our knowledge, so too may not our intellectual process be likewise fooled without our knowledge?

The conclusions I reach through an Intellectual analysis of my sensory data may differ from your interpretation of the same data source. Either or both of our sensory input or intellectual analysis may be in error without our knowledge.
As each of us is an individual, how can we ever know which of us is correct, or which in error; or even if either one is correct?

Is it more dangerous to claim Faith in the Beliefs derived from Authority, Intuition, or a possible faulty Individual Intellectual Analysis of questionable sensory input?

Next: The Scientific Method of Inquiry.​

 

That could be one source. It may be based on a charismatic, respected, feared, or powerful person or organization. It might be based on tradition. Or it could be based on past knowledge.
Or all of the above.