Using the Credentials Fallacy to Dismiss Anti-Protectionist, Pro-FDI Arguments

GarthBox

I guess it's time for another post, isn't it? I'd like to say that I'm no super-expert in my field. I could remember one time I started talking about the need for constitutional reform. What I always choose to speak about first is the need to liberalize the economy, let more FDIs come in, and allow FDIs to own 100% of their businesses. Instead,  get shot down by arguments like, "Why let them invest here? Only they will be rich!" Even worse, they'll have the credentials fallacy which can go with these kinds of insults that I can get every now and then:

1. "Shut up! You're not an economist!"
2. "Do you know Sonny Africa of IBON Foundation graduated from the London School of Economics and you didn't?"
   
3. "Do you have a degree from the University of the Philippines, Ateneo De Manila University, or any of the Greenbelt universities?"
   
4. "The school you graduated from is not one of the hardest to enter!"
5. "You just graduated from (insert school). I graduated from (insert prestigious University)."
   
6. "I graduated from the Asian Institute of Management therefore I'm right!"
7. "Do you know how many credentials I have! Check my Facebook account you (insert derogatory name)."

I wrote about social media gossip against Robin Padilla. The common argument was that they use Padilla's status as an ex-convinct therefore he can't lead the amendments. Arguments like calling him Boy Sili might further suggest their position is weakened. It's because using insults to win an argument is very uncalled for. Even worse, they tend to use Credits To The Owner (CTTO) a lot but who are they giving credit to? CTTO is something that I realize needs to be used sparingly. It's always better to give credit to the sources to see if they're valid or not. It's very easy to say, "Multiple studies show that FDI will destroy our countries. CTTO." Who's CTTO? Trust Me Bro Fact Checking Society? The MARITES School of Business and Economics? Intrigador Financials? 

To describe the credentials fallacy, the Effectiviology website explains it:

Explanation of the credentials fallacy

The credentials fallacy is a type of informal logical fallacy, since there is an issue with its premises, and namely with the premise that if someone doesn’t have credentials in a certain field, then any argument that they make can be immediately dismissed. This premise is problematic, since even though it can be appropriate to take credentials into account in some cases, it’s fallacious to assume that if someone doesn’t have appropriate credentials then their argument must necessarily be wrong.

Based on this, the credentials fallacy can be categorized as a genetic fallacy, since it focuses on the origin of the argument rather than on the argument itself. More specifically, it can be categorized as a type of ad hominem attack, since it personally targets the individual who is making the argument.

To further build up my authority, I can start citing valid sources like Claro M. Recto, the late Miriam Defensor-Santiago, the late Lee Kuan Yew, Mahathir Mohamad, the late Margaret Thatcher, the late Shinzo Abe, or Kishore Mahbubani (the founder of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) at the National University of Singapore (NUS)). I could read from the pages of LKY's book From Third World to First or cite from the LKYSPP to try and prove the Davide Jr. fanboy or that 1987 Constitution extremist that he or she is in the wrong. However, they will still shoot my argument to remove nonsense protectionist policies (such as the 60-40 equity deal) down simply because of my credentials.

We can now move to another example. Somebody is citing Hilario Davide Jr. to cite that FDI is bad and that it will colonize the Philippines. I would start to say, "No! That's not true!" The person citing Davide Jr. may say, "Are you a constitutionalist? Did any of your grandparents or parents help Davide frame the 1987 Constitution? If not then shut up!" 

The outcomes can be hilarious if the person still refuses to believe. The arguments can end up with more logical fallacies. I'm no expert in logic but it doesn't hurt for me to study it. I could think of these outcomes that can really be that stupid: 

1. The use of the Appeal to the Masses (Argument Ad Populum). It can be like, "Majority of Filipinos still agree that the 1987 Constitution is the best in the world!" "Majority of Filipinos believe charter change is bad, therefore it must be bad!" What's ignored is that the majority is not always right. That's why a lot of people fall into scams because of Argument Ad Populum. 
2. They can use the Genetic Fallacy argument accompanied by Ad Hominems to further down an argument. I could imagine it going something like, "Kishore Mahbuban is a smelly Indian! I'd listen to Davide over Mahbubani not only because he's my countryman but because he definitely isn't a smelly Indian!" 
3. A couple of Red Herring arguments can be used like name-calling. It can be accompanied by an Appeal to Emotion fallacy such as the Trust Me Bro or (insert insult) style of argument. That should be considered the peak of the MARITES pyramid of learning (read here).
4. Even worse, the Appeal to Emotion fallacy can end up like, "If you don't believe me! I will (insert physical threat)." It can go something like, "If you don't believe me that the Marcos Years was a parliamentary government, I will cut you up with my machete."

Evidence matters more than claims. It's possible anybody can keep singing and dancing to the tune "It's More Fun in the Philippines". The slogan was introduced during the time of the late former Philippine president, Benigno Simeno C. Aquino III. The slogan was copied from Switzerland. Anybody can say, "I see absolutely no need to amend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. It's the only constitution that is... blah blah blah..." Well, think about it all the blah blah blahs mean nothing if there's no evidence. Has the Philippines, as a country, really become a long-standing model like Singapore? One can argue from growth rate but growth rate alone will not determine things. A developed country may soon have a lower growth rate because of how long it's developed. An emerging country like the Philippines may have had a bigger growth rate during Aquino III's term since it was still rising up.

This reminds me that I took my MBA just for the sake of a credential. However, I soon found myself using the credentials fallacy just to look good. What really shocks people is how lousy the Philippine education system is. How is it that people with good academic records end up becoming so stupid? That's why even some people with good academic records now admit, "We learned nothing but to memorize! That's why students cheat in every way possible!" 

Some stubborn boomers are still stuck with their credentials. What's often ignored is that being an honor student back in the 1960s may become moot today. It's because the books and lessons back then were easier than they are today. Lessons have to get harder because new information is generated daily. What's the use of being an honor student if one's an honor student in a lower-standard school? I guess that's why they continue to get defensive is also because they think they're always right. They just can't stand it when a person of lower educational status beats them with the facts. Do they even realize that some of the facts are taken from people actually even better than them? 

I would like to ask what good did the credentials do? Did it make the Philippines a better country? Instead, more Filipinos are still flying abroad due to a lack of job opportunities. The public services are still costly and of bad quality. These credentialists would start giving nonsense solutions which have been proven, by common sense, to never work. Their credentials are best called "It's just a degree if you can't provide good results."