Courtier's reply

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

The courtier’s reply is an informal fallacy. It happens when someone answers a criticism by saying the critic isn’t knowledgeable or qualified enough to judge, instead of addressing the argument itself. It’s like an inverted appeal to authority: a non-expert disagrees with experts and is treated as wrong by default.

A key point is that the responder never explains why the critics’ supposed experts undermine the original argument. Critics sometimes call this the “Myers shuffle,” implying it’s a rhetorical dodge.

Origin and example
- The term was coined by American biologist PZ Myers in December 2006 on his blog Pharyngula, while reacting to criticism of Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion.
- Critics argued that Dawkins lacked training in philosophy or theology, calling his points into question.
- Myers used a satirical analogy to The Emperor’s New Clothes, suggesting Dawkins is the reasonable voice who sees the naked truth while critics defend the fashion. He referenced elaborate philosophical sources as part of the joke.

Notable discussions and responses
- Myers also cited H. Allen Orr’s criticism as an example of a courtier’s reply.
- Dawkins himself responded to such criticisms with quips about not needing theology to reject unfounded ideas and even quoted or invoked the courtier’s reply in debates and in later editions of his book.
- English critic Terry Eagleton questioned Dawkins’s command of philosophical differences and asked if he had read certain philosophers, highlighting the tension between scholarly background and popular debate.
- Luke Muehlhauser argued that questions about theology or philosophy are irrelevant if one is discussing the existence of God, pointing out that millions of believers aren’t familiar with academic theologians.
- Catholic philosopher Edward Feser called the courtier’s reply a rhetorical “pseudo-defense” used by the New Atheism movement to dodge criticism, dubbing it the Myers shuffle. He argued it’s a fallacy that diverts from the real issues.

Critics and defenders of the pattern
- Critics say the Myers shuffle relies on sophistry and special pleading, and that dismissing critics’ sources because of claimed ignorance is an ad hominem or red herring.
- Defenders argue that dismissing a critic’s credentials can be relevant when discussing empirical or logical issues, and that broad claims about belief systems can be independent of theologians’ scholarly debates.

In short, the courtier’s reply points to alleged ignorance of critics instead of addressing the arguments themselves, a move critics call a deceptive shortcut in debates about religion and existence.