I come from a scientific background, where "authorities" are not respected. Scientists publish their theories and experimental results, which then either vanish from current thought or are built upon to create new developments. The people who did the work are rarely remembered, unless their names are attached to something like a scientific concept (Avogadro's number or Coriolis force) or a piece of equipment or a reagent (Warburg manometer or Fehling's solution). These names serve as a form of shorthand, avoiding a longer description of whatever it is the name is attached to, and only incidentally commemorate the person concerned - in any case, a very random honour.
A few scientific superstars have names that have passed into common knowledge, on account of the importance of their ideas (for example, Newton, Einstein and Darwin), but these are the exceptions.
In other fields of thought, it is not unusual to regard the progenitor of an idea as the authority, whose ideas are the pure truth, which may be explained, clarified and proselytised, but never criticised or modified. Ayn Rand seems to come into that category, judging by the actions of her followers - starting with Rand herself.
Some discussions of the philosophy of science veer dangerously towards reliance on authority, particularly concerning evolution. Darwin can no longer be regarded as an authority on "darwinism", because so much of the development of evolutionary theory has come after his death. Darwin's ideas are of only historical interest within the body of evolutionary thought, except where someone develops new ideas from his ideas. (It follows that anyone trying to falsify evolutionary theory must address the theory as expounded or assumed by present-day evolutionists, not by Darwin. Creationists please note.)
In my pages, I shall often use the term "popperian". This is pure shorthand for the general attitude and practice of critical rationalism, and I use it because I expect that most people with whom I discuss these matters will understand this term. There is no implication that Popper himself is to be taken as the authority on anything but his own particular views. Like any other person, he took ideas from his predecessors and contemporaries, and - the most important thing about any great thinker - he influenced others to go on and use and develop his ideas. Criticism and development of ideas, not respect for authority, is the true "popperian" spirit.
Note: I was encouraged to add this comment by recent readings from books by Steven Rose and David Deutsch.
Copyright © 1999-2000 Richard Burnham