Atomism and Authoritarianism in Scholarship

In his excellent discussion on textual criticism in Interpreting Galatians, Moisés Silva says that "the textual discussions one finds in a commentary amount to little more than a guess or a mildly informed opinion" (43). And the central problem, he says, is atomism:

When NT scholars cite the reading of a manuscript, they almost never assess that reading in the light of the scribal peculiarities of that manuscript as a whole. As a result, statements about whether one type of change is more likely than another are usually based on very general and vague principles (such as "the shorter reading is preferred," a valid criterion that must however be used with awareness of some important qualifications), not on familiarity with the scribal tendencies found in specific manuscripts. Moreover, variants are most often evaluated without attention to parallel variations in other passages (44). 

I've often wondered why I'm supposed to submit to these general principles (such as "the shorter reading is preferred," or "the more difficult reading is preferred"). While there may be some validity in such principles, as Silva points out, I still often find myself asking, "Why?" "On whose authority?" "Why should I bow to these principles?" "Are they inspired?" Textual criticism is not a hard science like chemistry, and no set of principles can infallibly guide one through textual difficulties.

So in addition to the problem of atomism, I'd add the problem of authoritarianism. And I'm glad that a solid scholar like Silva has given us permission to ignore much of what the scholars have to say. But I confess, I probably would have done the ignoring without that permission. Scholars are getting easier and easier to ignore. And most should not give a second thought to what the mass of them thinks.