Thecourtier's reply is an alleged type ofinformal fallacy, coined by American biologistPZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever.[1] It may be considered an inverted form ofargument from authority, where a person without authority disagreeing with authority is presumed incorrectprima facie.
A key element of a courtier's reply, which distinguishes it from an otherwise valid response that incidentally points out the critic's lack of established authority on the topic, is that the respondent never shows how the work of these overlooked experts invalidates the arguments that were advanced by the critic.
Critics of the idea that the courtier's reply is a real fallacy have called it the "Myers shuffle", implying calling someone out for an alleged courtier's reply is a kind of rhetorical dodge or trick.
American biologist and academicPZ Myers coined the term "courtier's reply" in a December 2006 entry on his blog,Pharyngula. Myers was reacting to some of the criticism leveled at the 2006 bookThe God Delusion, in which authorRichard Dawkins argued against the existence of asupernatural creator. Critics argued that Dawkins' lack of qualifications inphilosophy ortheology called into question a number of his arguments. Myers responded to this criticism by making ananalogy, comparing Dawkins to the boy at the end of the fableThe Emperor's New Clothes, who is the only reasonable voice that recognizes the Emperor is naked. Myers satirized the aforementioned critics as follows:[1]
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.[1]
Myers also characterizedH. Allen Orr's criticism ofThe God Delusion as an example of this argument.[1][2]
Dawkins himself responded to critics ofThe God Delusion who argued that he is not a theologian and stated, "Most of us happily disavowfairies,astrology, and theFlying Spaghetti Monster without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology."[3] Dawkins quoted the courtier's reply in a debate withAlister McGrath,[4] and he also referenced it in the preface toThe God Delusion's 2007 paperback edition.[5]
English literary theorist and criticTerry Eagleton wrote ofThe God Delusion: "What, one wonders, are Dawkins's views on the epistemological differences betweenAquinas andDuns Scotus? Has he readEriugena on subjectivity,Rahner on grace orMoltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?"[6]Luke Muehlhauser, the executive director of theMachine Intelligence Research Institute, wrote on his blog,Common Sense Atheism, that this criticism is irrelevant when the existence or otherwise of God is discussed. Muehlhauser wrote, "Eagleton misses the point. If a creator god doesn't exist, it doesn't matter whether the imaginary god's grace is best described by Rahner or someone else. Besides, the millions of believers to which Dawkins writes have never heard of Rahner, either. Christianity as practiced by billions of people is not the Christianity of the academic theologians."[7]
Roman Catholic philosopherEdward Feser, writing inThe American, has called the courtier's reply a rhetorical "pseudo-defense" employed as a "clever marketing tag" in order for members of theNew Atheism movement to avoid criticism of their arguments. Feser terms the courtier's reply "the Myers shuffle".[8]
The "Myers shuffle" criticism claims that invoking the courtier's reply rhetoric usually acts as a summation of sophistry and/or logical fallacies. It particularly characterizes Muehlhauser's form of the assertion (that philosophical or theological ignorance is irrelevant if the existence of God is not established), as a case of fallaciousspecial pleading, and points out that asserting that the "average believer" is not well informed about theology is ared herring since the popularity of a position does not make it true, a fallacy known asargumentum ad populum. In turn, Muehlhauser and others reply that Feser is engaging in special pleading andprivileging the hypothesis.
