Q&A: Formal Authority Regarding Facts
Formal Authority Regarding Facts
Question
Hello Rabbi,
This topic has been discussed on the site many times, but I’d be glad if you could clarify a central point about it.
You say quite a few times that formal authority regarding facts is a logical fallacy. One cannot require me to think A when I think B.
About that I want to ask: what is illogical about the requirement? Assuming such a thing is possible, why shouldn’t the meaning of the requirement be that I should persuade myself to think differently using psychological means, or alternatively pay a hypnotist (of my own free will) to make me think B?
Just to emphasize: my question is about the logical problem in this, not about moral / practical / other aspects.
Thank you,
Answer
Because if I am hypnotized to think differently, that does not mean that I think differently. It only means that there is a different thought in my head. That is not the same thing. But this hair-splitting seems to me entirely unnecessary.
One can of course command me to check again, but not to think differently.