Courtier's Reply

{{lognav}}{{hatnote|For the people most known for commiting this fallacy, see our article on [[Sophisticated_theology|sophisticated theologians]].}}
{{cquote|I'll tell you what — if you think I need a "[[Sophisticated_theology|sophisticated understanding of theology]]" to ''debunk'' bad religious ideas, then I hope you are also criticizing all those people who ''believe'' this nonsense without an "expert level understanding" of it, too.|||[[Hemant Mehta]], ''The Atheist Voice''<ref name="Hemant">https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YPeG8vbv55o</ref>}}
The '''Courtier's Reply''' is a term popularized by [[biologist]]/blogger [[PZ Myers]] to describe an [[informal fallacy]] that boils down to: "But you haven't read enough on it!"<ref name=courtier>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070216115811/https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php The Courtier's Reply] by PZ Myers (December 24, 2006 10:16 AM) ''Pharyngula'' (archived from February 16, 2007).</ref>

His answer to the fallacy is to say that telling a non-believer that he should study [[theology]] before he can properly discuss whether a god exists is like telling the child in Hans Christian Andersen's fable "The Emperor's New Clothes" to study haute couture before he can properly discuss whether the Emperor is [[naked]].<ref>{{wpa|The Emperor's New Clothes}}</ref>

Essentially, it's a particularly ham-handed [[argument from authority]] where the position's proponent attempts to bury the opponent under a pile of detail which is largely irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

Denunciation of this particular fallacy, however, is quite easy to misuse. Whenever one is told to read more about a subject that he disagrees on, it is easy to accuse one's contradictors of giving a "Courtier's Reply". The element of the Courtier's Reply that is being forgotten here is that it asks the questioner to "read more" about a subject that ''[[begs the question]]''. Therefore it cannot be used, for instance, by people not liking that they are being asked to read more about [[global warming]] if they deny it. In addition, it is not fallacious to tell, for example, a [[creationism|creationist]] to read more on [[evolution]], if they clearly do not understand what they are talking about, and are basing their [[evidence]] on false premises (such as, for example, believing that [[abiogenesis]] = evolution).

==Statement==
The first known instance of the use of this phrase was in response to criticism of ''[[The God Delusion]]'' by [[Richard Dawkins]]; a standard criticism was that Dawkins had not studied [[theology]] and was therefore unqualified to discuss evidence for or against the existence of [[God]].<ref name=courtier/>

Which PZ Myers derisively transposed to Andersen's fable as:
{{Cquote|Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste.|||PZ Myers<ref name=courtier/>}}
The fallaciousness of the Courtier's Reply is evident: the study of couture is only relevant to the Emperor's New Clothes if such clothes actually exist. No such knowledge is necessary to question their very existence.

Dawkins himself once said, when referring to the fact that he is not a theologian:<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBaAJcv7Vxg Dawkins on Theology.] ''video on [[YouTube]]'' At 6:47.</ref>
{{Cquote|Most of us happily disavow fairies, [[astrology]], and the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] without first immersing ourselves in books of [[Pastafarian]] theology.}}
Hemant Mehta also points out that religious people of any one given faith will gladly criticize ''other'' religions ''without'' having read all of ''their'' theological works. This goes doubly for what some may consider "[[No True Scotsman|joke faiths]]", such as [[Scientology]].<ref name="Hemant"/>

Likewise, the bulk of theology rests on the assumption that a particular god (or a particular set of gods) exists. Without this assumption, it has no logical basis and can be safely ignored. One can question the relevancy of this criticism, however, since the existence of the divine is an ''axiomatic'' assumption in theology. No theologian worth their salt is going to take seriously the criticism that "the existence of god cannot be demonstrated, therefore theology is worth ignoring", as theology is the discourse of the dogma and doctrines ''within'' a given religion; thus, arguments that oppose what is held to be axiomatically true are going to be considered irrelevant. One can make a distinction between theology and apologetics in this manner.

As some commenters<ref>[http://tbdc.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/god-delusion-courtiers-reply.html The God Delusion: The Courtier's Reply]</ref> retorted, however, some arguments against the existence of God ''do'' use this assumption, as part of ''[[reductio ad absurdum]]'' demonstrations. For example, arguing that [[omnipotence]] and [[omnibenevolence]] are incompatible (or [[problem of evil|inconsistent with the existence of evil/suffering]]) requires assuming the existence of those attributes in some being, and ''then'' looking for logical inconsistencies. In such cases, treatises on the nature of these attributes become relevant — though, again, entirely by virtue of having begged the question.

Conversely, theology sometimes omits the premise that God exists. Indeed, keeping this premise in arguments for the existence of God would be [[circular reasoning]].

===Use of the fallacy outside religion===
One famous early example is attributed to [[Isaac Newton]], who allegedly said to a [[skeptical]] {{wpl|Edmund Halley}} regarding [[astrology]] — "I, sir, have studied it; you have not."{{efn|Newton is alleged by some to have had an ardent interest in astrology. This is hotly disputed by others — as is the quote.<ref>[http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/astrology/newton.htm Isaac Newton and Astrology: Witness for the Defence or for the Prosecution?] by Robert H. van Gent (updated 3 August 2007) ''Faculty of Science, Utrecht University''.</ref>}} And we all know how well astrology turned out to work: As well as a wet bag of hair.

==When "you don't understand" is non-fallacious==

Frequently, a version of the "Courtier's Reply" is non-fallacious, when discussing somebody who clearly misunderstands a crucial fact, definition, or nuance of the position. For example, if a disputant in a hypothetical argument clearly is explicitly assuming that global warming is caused by the hole in the Ozone layer, a viewer would probably not be wrong in labeling this disputant as "clearly ill-informed" based on that fact alone.

Areas that are particularly prone to being misunderstood in this way particularly include cosmology (particularly in relation to the [[Big Bang]]) and quantum physics.

==See also==
*[[Argument from authority]]
*[[How do you know? Were you there?]]
*[[Sophisticated theology]]
*[[Theology#Duping theologians]] — the Sokalability of theologians
*[[Ultracrepidarianism]]
==External links==
*[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/ The Courtier’s Reply] By [[PZ Myers]]
*[http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/09/on-expertise.html Daylight Atheism On Expertise]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Evaluating arguments]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Evaluating arguments, Informal fallacies