Why logical arguments are bad arguments

[benji]

authority seems reasonable as a metric if both parties can agree that the authority knows what they're talking about

and the opposite scenario -- the idea that no one should appeal to accepted science or consensus of knowledge and instead must fully understand and articulate that information themselves -- that also seems untenable and ridiculous

unless you're going out in the field performing experiments yourself, almost all information we have access to is appealing to some type of authority who gathered that data, and trusting that they did a good job at it

I'd like to appeal to authority of the sociology of science school and the related SCIENCE MUST FALL people who argue that the problem with "accepted science" is exactly that the authority is illegitimate, namely yt cishet men, and their practices like the "scientific method" dismiss other, equally valid, ways of knowing while using epistemic violence to maintain its hegemony. You don't personally observe quarks and so on, you trust the yt cishet men, so there's no difference in me referring to my truth about magical forces and souls.