Talk:Argument from authority/Archive 1

"Appeal"

The entire previous article was invalid because it completely ignored the concept of an "appeal" which is fundamental to "Appeal to authority". An appeal to authority is inherently fallacious and has nothing to do with a person internally considering the credentials of a source of information. It also is separate from the person who presents the credentials of a source to establish a basic level of competency. -Anon

"Various"

I'm looking at that Linus Pauling example, and I really don't think that such a statement applies. Vitamin C is pretty damn well in the realm of chemistry (biochemistry, of which Pauling was a genius) so...yeah, is anyone else in agreement with putting in a new example? User:ZanshinJ

---

The appeal to authority is fallacious because Quine says so! User:Ed Poor

---

Hmm, where does this "Five conditions" section come from? Surely it would be better to put an argument by authority into a valid form:

• If person X says statement Y and Y is about subject area Z then X is true
• Person X does say Y and Y is about subject area Z

Therefore

• Y is true

Most arguments by authority presumably hinge on the truth of the first premisis.

Also I feel that this article should address the need for appeal to authority as a social neccessity (eg doctors orders) and a consiquence of the division of labour. --harry 13:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Society depends not on an appeal to authority, but rather internal decision to trust other people's reasoning at times. If you insist on appealing to someone's authoritative status, other than in dialogue with yourself, then your actions are fallacious. Hence the name "Appeal to authority fallacy" rather than just "fallacy of authoritative source" (which would be wrong)

Agreed, though Harry's version would need to be made clearer to be used. This "Five Conditions" thing sounds like it was quoted from somewhere. Where? And who dixit? — Asbestos | Talk 12:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

In the entry for Logical Fallacy under the sub-heading Fallacies in the media and politics it states; "...An appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy though it can be an appropriate form of rational argument if, for example, it is an appeal to expert testimony."

This is in conflict with this article, especially where this one reads; "Sometimes, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy." The approach in the Logical Fallacy article is preferable and it would be good if the article here reflected it, perhaps also mentioning an 'appeal to expediency' as another example of an often rationally legitimate 'appeal to authority'. Actually, an appeal to expert testimony is only justified by an appeal to expediency. Sometimes there simply is not enough time to argue about who has the best argument in current pressing circumstances.

But, it is always a fallacy to conclude the ultimate soundness or correctness of an argument by authority, even though it may be wise to proceed as though it were both sound and authoritive. That is, an argument must not rest crucially on an 'appeal to authority' to be actually correct or sound. Layman 02:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) message edited Layman 04:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Authoritarian ethics?

I was thinking that authoritarian ethics was more of a meta-ethical theory, isn't it? I'm no expert, though. NickelShoe 17:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Forms Section

The forms section distinguishes between legitimate and fallacious arguments from authority. However I do not believe the form of such an argument is what determines its validity. In each case, a simplified version of the argument could be:

1. Person A asserts X

2. Person A is likely to be correct about X (almost equivalent to: A is an "expert" in the field of X)

therefore

3. X is likely to be correct

This argument is only fallacious when statement 2 (or to a lesser extent 1) is false or dubious, or if it's ignored completely.

In my opinion, a lot of the confusion about whether or not arguments from authority are always fallacious is a result of confusion over whether one can ever fully trust another person. One other reason why the appeal to authority may not fall under the banner of "pure" logic is that authority is established through a person being true repeatedly, and this relies to some degree on correlation indicating causation.

As an example of commonly accepted arguments from authority (like the suggested "doctors" scenario) is the fact that most people believe in things which they have never directly percieved, on the basis of the authority of others. For example, I have never directly seen Barbados, yet I believe it exists because of the authority of atlases, encyclopedias, etc.

I think that the idea that any argument should be based "solely on direct evidence" is not clear. If "direct evidence" means empirical evidence, ie. experience, one would be convinced of barely anything one reads, unless it concerns the page right in front of them.

If anyone has any problems with the above, post here or preferably on my talk page; otherwise I'll work on the article. Leon... 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Validity is based on form. That's how the word validity is defined in the realm of logic. "A deductively valid argument is one in which it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false." So says my old logic text, Austen Clark 2001, printed by the UConn Coop.

Just because an argument is fallacious doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. But for an argument to be valid by relying on authority, we have to assume their infallibility. This doesn't mean we can't work under the assumption they know what they're talking about. But it's still possible they're wrong, which is the point. Fallacious doesn't mean stupid, it just means it has logical problems.

I don't think the article suggests we should only be convinced of what we percieve directly. Direct evidence, rather, refers to information as opposed to testimonial. Rather than simply listening to people's conclusions, we have to listen to their arguments. And if we want, we may be convinced by testimonials. Logic isn't really about belief. You can believe whatever you want, but you can use logic as a tool to evaluate arguments. NickelShoe 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks NickelShoe.

Paragaph 1 - Perhaps I have misused the word fallacious, however I can't see any logical problems in the structure I gave in my last post, and I believe that this is the structure most appeals to authority take. It doesn't provide any guarantees, since it's only likely that the authority tells the truth, but I don't think there are problems in the form of the argument. Infallibility only has to be assumed if you're looking for a sure answer, or if you're in the realm of formal logic. This article deals generally with such appeals.

Paragraph 2 - point taken, however I believe the expression "direct evidence" to be misleading. Any facts which are not a priori and are outside our experience, are taken from authority anyway. It just seems incorrect to suggest that an argument is ok when dealing in statements (information), but when it tries to substantiate those statements with testemonial, it becomes fallacious.

If fallacy follows form, then I'm suggesting that appeals to authority aren't fallacious unless one is trying to deal in absolutes, or doesn't acknowledge the element of chance.

Leon... 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if your conclusion is that X is likely to be correct, it is no fallacy. Perhaps you should edit the article to explain that.

Yes, I understand the directness problem. I don't know the best way to address that in the article. NickelShoe 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Fallacious" isn't a helpful term here, I think, as it's often used non-technically to mean no more than "incorrect in some way"; it would be better to distinguish between validity (which is what "fallaciousness" means strictly speaking) and soundness. The argument form in question is:

Person A asserts X

Person A is likely to be correct about X (almost equivalent to: A is an "expert" in the field of X)

Therefore X is likely to be correct

There's a problem about the way this is expressed ("asserts" in the minor premise but not in the major) which makes the arument invalid as it stands, and if that could be fixed the validity depends further on what exactly is meant by "likely". The soundness of the argument obviously depends upon the truth of the major (second) premise.

My own feeling is that the argument is dubiously valid. Even if some expert e is, let's say, 75% likely to be right about the truth of i, we can't infer from e's assertion that i that i is 75% likely to be true.

1. It may be that e is for some reason misrepresenting her true opinion.
2. It may be that another expert, ε, is 80% likely to be right about the truth of i, and ε asserts that i is false.
3. It may be that the background probability of i is so low that we shouldn't accept e's testimony (Hume's argument against belief in miracles is the limiting case of this).

I don't know if that helps or just confuses things further... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your discussion (and the three points you make) demonstrate the impossibility of trying to determine the exact probability that e is correct about the truth of i. However, this probability doesn't have to be determined to show the validity of the argument's structure (only to make it perfectly sound). In everyday life, one estimates such probabilities routinely even though the number of determining factors may be beyond comprehension.

Besides that, the (hypothetical) probability in question has been determined by taking into account all other factors, including the background probability of i, any other assertions e could have made, and the probability that e lies. Again, this probability doesn't have to be calculable, but the listener may have some idea of it, just as the probability of a coin landing tails up isn't exactly calculable.

Obviously there are a lot of problems with this sort of appeal in terms of soundness (as a "guesstimate" is almost always involved), but I still believe that there's nothing invalid about that form of argument.

Finally, I think the term "assert" could be present in the major premise if it were rewritten as "person A's assertion of X is likely to be correct" (or "has P% chance of being correct)Leon... 11:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that what you term the assessment of probability in everyday life is in fact usually (always?) the development of degrees of psychological certainty. More importantly, I can't agree that the background probabilty of a particular case is included in the assessment of a person's expertise; that leads to a circle, in fact (we assess the likelihood of i based on the expertise of e, and we assess the expertise of e in terms of the likelihood of i...).

Each of my three points challenged the validity of the argument (not merely the acceptability of its premises). The argument could perhaps be tweaked in order to survive one or two of my criticisms (though I don't know whether it would be of any use in its new form), but not all of them without making it trivial.

Changing the major premise to include "assertion" would only push the problem back, as we'd need to ask why we should think that A's asserion was likely to be true — and presumably we'd be offered an argument about A's expertise... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A question

I have a question about Appeal to Authority. Any comment is welcome.

I am often finding myself to be the victim of a rhetorical technique in forum debates and I'm not sure if it is an invalid Appeal to Authority or if it is something else entirely.

This is a the basic form that I have seen:

   Person Y states A
   Expert E states: B
   Person Z draws (but does not prove) conclusion C from B
   Conclusion C is incompatible with A
   Person Z states that expert E disagrees with A and therefore A is likely to be false

Superficially, this may look like a valid Appeal to Authority. But I argue this isn't really an Appeal to Authority. The conclusion drawn by Z is not coming from the authority. If the conclusion C obvious from the B, I would say it is (probably) valid. What I see, however, is that the conclusion proposed by Z is not the only possible conclusion.

As a good example of how this was used and clearly invalid I was once in an argument where this tactic was used and then later it was shown that the expert in question had explicitly contradicted the conclusion drawn by Z.

A related tactic would be misquoting the expert or inventing statements and attributing them to an expert falsely.

Any help classifying this form of rhetoric is appreciated, thanks.

Dubwai 15:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see how the expert statement comes into play here. You don't appear to be challenging that statement (if quoted correctly), but rather the conclusions your debate opponent drew from those statements. In this case, the type of logic error would vary, depending on how your opponent reached that conclusion. Did the expert say "all cats are mammals" and your opponent concluded that "all mammals are cats", for instance ? So, basically consider the expert statement to be the assertion, and decide for yourself if that leads to the conclusion supplied by your opponent. StuRat 17:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The reason that the expert statement comes into play is that any question of the conclusion is answered by the assertion that I am going against the authority. I think I get your point, though, the flaw is in the conclusion. Here's an example of this error:

   A: Not all classes should have factory methods
   B: Josh Bloch (expert) states that factory methods are generally better than public 
      constructors (this is true)
   B: Therefore all classes should have factory methods and no public constructor (Josh Bloch 
      actually contradicts this in the same work where the above statement is written)
   A: I agree factory methods have many advantages over public constructors but that doesn't 
      mean we should never use public constructors.
   B: You should read Josh Bloch's book as he is very smart and knowledgeable about this 
      subject.

I guess what I am running into is that the these wiki pages are often a quick way to disarm rhetoric without getting off subject. Trying to show somone's logical flaws can obsure the original argument. I'd like to have a reference that I can point to and say "this is what you are doing." Dubwai 18:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Argument" from authority always a fallacy?

I believe an argument from authority is always a fallacy. The reason being is that it is up to each person to determine if another is an authority on a subject or not, so therefore noone should try to convince a third party (IE make an argument) that something is true becuase and authoritative sorce said so.

I believe this can be determined from the information admitted to in the already existing article. It says that the authoritative source cannot be biased. But if someone points to them as an authoritative source, it is always possible if not likely that they simply share the same biases. So while it might be fine to simply point to an authoritative source and let someone do what they will with it, I think it is incorrect to try and force someone to accept or act due to the claims of an authoritative source they do not trust.

Furthermore talking about abscence of bias is unrealistic in my opinion, as I have met few if any people in life whose only goal is to provide objective information.

I believe this view is mistaken and that to the extent this article endorses it, it is in error. Human knowledge is dependent upon testimony, and the Cartesian project of building up knowledge by a single individual is impossible. Much of what we know is known only through testimony, including the meanings of words, our own place and date of birth, and most of the conclusions of the best current science. There are many scientific experiments conducted today (e.g., in particle physics) that are dependent upon the work of hundreds of people working in different places to produce the evidence to draw a conclusion. If appeal to authority is always fallacious, then all of these inferences are fallacious. (I recommend philosopher C.A.J. Coady's book on _Testimony_...) Lippard 15:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To expound a bit further--the fallacy of appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance. A relevant appeal to authority is not a fallacy unless the person using it purports to be drawing a deductive inference, which it isn't. But most of our knowledge is not based on deductive inferences, outside of the fields of logic and mathematics, so the mere fact that an appeal to authority is a rebuttable inference doesn't make it fallacious. Lippard 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the author of this section specifically indicated that his statements referenced an "Argument" from authority (Something that was always to be the case about an APPEAL to authority, but apparently was not clear enough), but you responded with statements that dealt with a person reasoning to themselves about whether or not they need to verify all claims presented to them. In that case, a wise person would still consider the motives of the "Authority", but the issue here is that special problems arise when a person (X) makes an argument to another person (Y) trying to force them to accept a claim based on the authority of someone else (Z). In order for the argument to persist, Y must deem themselves somewhat knowledgeable on the subject - thus from Y's perspective the "authority" status of Z is already suspect. In contrast X has decided to rely on the reasoning of Z, a sign that X is not particularly knowledgeable about the subject. Furthermore, instead of presenting the argument of Z (which Y could then disassemble if it was incorrect), X points only to the fact that Z disagrees. In this case, we must ask the question how does X know Z truly does disagree?

In short if you don't know about a subject (such that you could just present a counterargument), you are not in a competent position to try and force someone else to accept whatever authoritative source you have accepted. Just shut up and let the two knowledgeable parties work it out. In direct response: You are claiming knowledge above and beyond what you have. There are people who have deductive networks of knowledge covering just about every subject, and have a logical proof in mind for many subjects that other people try and contradict using an appeal to what an authoritative source believes. Just because you are not one of these people capable of this "Cartesian Project", does not mean they do not exist.

Firstly, the author of this section specifically indicated that his statements referenced an "Argument" from authority (Something that was always to be the case about an APPEAL to authority, but apparently was not clear enough), but you responded with statements that dealt with a person reasoning to themselves about whether or not they need to verify all claims presented to them. In that case, a wise person would still consider the motives of the "Authority", but the issue here is that special problems arise when a person (X) makes an argument to another person (Y) trying to force them to accept a claim based on the authority of someone else (Z). In order for the argument to persist, Y must deem themselves somewhat knowledgeable on the subject - thus from Y's perspective the "authority" status of Z is already suspect. In contrast X has decided to rely on the reasoning of Z, a sign that X is not particularly knowledgeable about the subject. Furthermore, instead of presenting the argument of Z (which Y could then disassemble if it was incorrect), X points only to the fact that Z disagrees. In this case, we must ask the question how does X know Z truly does disagree?

In short if you don't know about a subject (such that you could just present a counterargument), you are not in a competent position to try and force someone else to accept whatever authoritative source you have accepted. Just shut up and let the two knowledgeable parties work it out. In direct response: You are claiming knowledge above and beyond what you have. There are people who have deductive networks of knowledge covering just about every subject, and have a logical proof in mind for many subjects that other people try and contradict using an appeal to what an authoritative source believes. Just because you are not one of these people capable of this "Cartesian Project", does not mean they do not exist.

Your recommendation of reading the mentioned book is an example of appeal to authority. Any further relevant argument in the book that you actually understood, you could simply present with minimal effort.

Comment by Onthesideoftheangels

Sincerely apologise for this and hope someone more informed will be able to re-categorise these or re-name them in conformity to those in predominant use. Comment posted by Onthesideoftheangels (talk · contribs) to main article, moved here by Mtz206 (talk · contribs)

Negative Appeal to authority?

Is the following appeal to authority, but negative or inverse or opposite or just appeal to authority or not?

A makes claim B; there is something negative about A, therefore claim B is false.

--jeolmeun 06:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They're both genetic fallacies, but that's more technically an ad hominem attack. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Related Fiels and reductionism approach

Maybe Linus Pauling was wrong. He certainly is not be taken as a medical doctor. But the reductionism approach in today's scientific methodology (and this is evident in medical literature) permit that other scientist in related fields ( such as chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, biophysics or nutrition- present their hypotesis in a formal manner, so that Science, as a whole, can test their claims. To believe in Linus Pauling just because he won the Nobel Price is misleading way of thinking. To go to any scientist other than the medical doctor as if this scientist have Medicine as a profession is also misleading, even if we get lucky. But that a Chemist, Biochemist, Biophysicist, Nutricionist, Pharmacologist, or Biologist have the opportunity to prove his theory on vitamin C is no fallacy. It's a valid approach , as long as correct science is used. That is the way Science as a whole grows. Medicine uses a lot of Chemistry, Biology and Physics. So we must be careful here. Just because one is not a Physician is no reason to render that person as a complete ignorant of that field. Scientist do research. A formal and well credited Scientist should be given the proper time to explain his hypotesis. Perhaps if the person doesn't have the proper credential is it justified to simply require that he earn them before proposing his ideas, to be fair, because with so many ideas one have to choose which are more likely to be correctly developed, even if this process is imperfect, so as to not waste the resources. But as far as I have seen, Chemist, Biochemist, Biophysicist, Nutricionist, Pharmacologist, or Biologist all have that needed credential. To dismiss them as ignorant just because they are not M.D.'s is a fallacy-

Name

My Logic textbook (Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic) uses the term "appeal to unqualified authority" rather than "appeal to authority." Does anyone know of any other source using the term or did the author make it up himself because he thought it was clearer? --Silver2195 23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to Wikipedia

I have seen the following example being deleted at least twice recently:

• Something must be true because it is in Wikipedia.

However, either someone shows me why this example is not as fallacious as the other examples, or please refrain from deleting it.

It can also be argued that it is redundant (an encyclopedia is mentioned also) or innecessary, but I consider that it is actually quite appropriate. Deleting it makes us look like we are saying the Wikipedia can not be wrong, and is always a valid authority, when Aristotle, Einstein or any other encyclopedia have already been mentioned as not necessarily correct.

I used to think that that example ought to be removed, due unto its being redundant considering the aforementioned example of an encyclopædia; however, considering the way in which Wikipedia is becoming an increasingly unquestioned resource nowadays, it might be a very good thing to remind readers that it most certainly isn’t. I therefore support the inclusion of the example of Wikipedia. By the way, unto the above contributor as well as any other contributor: please sign all your comments on talk pages and in other discussion fora with four tildes (~~~~), as this gives your username and a timestamp. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I do know how to sign... I just keep forgeting, sorry. The above comment is mine. Isilanes 21:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you can even sign without making an account. Anyway, The main reason I deleted it was because it looked redundant. It also looked a bit like pointless self insertion. Putting Wikipedia on the same level as Aristotle or Einstein seemed silly. Anyway, I just reworded it now so it makes more sense. I don't of anyone that seriously uses Wikipedia as an unquestioned source, while people do with many of the other things mentioned. 66.0.141.195 01:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Variation on appeal to authority ?

I've noticed a particular deceptive method of discourse that I'm trying to categorize. Let me start with an example:

• Reasonable Assertion: "The Mississippi River represents the soul in the works of Mark Twain."

• Reasonable Challenge: "What is your evidence for that ?"

• Unreasonable Reply: "Well, if you'd read the complete works of Mark Twain, all of the scholarly analyses of Twain, and, in particular, Milton's Paradise Lost, as I have, you wouldn't need to ask such an ignorant question."

Now, this "evidence" is usually of exceptional volume, ensuring that, even if the challenger were to read all of the sources given, the debate would long be over by that time. Another feature of this argument is that it lacks specific, like "Mark Twain explained this on page 112 of his autobiography". And, it is necessary that the person making the assertion represent themselves as an authority, in order for their defense to be believable, and that the challenger not already be well-versed in all the references given. Of course, since nobody is well-versed in everything, the "authority" can always reach for more and more obscure references, and even make them up entirely:

• Unreasonable Reply: "Well, if you'd read Szilrwepopski's theory of flombugartigation, as I have, you wouldn't need to ask such an ignorant question."

So, my question is, do we have a name for this type of deceptive argument ? (I know, if I'd read Szilrwepopski, I wouldn't need to ask, LOL). StuRat 11:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd suggest the coining of an eponym to describe it.

• Unreasonable Reply: "Well, if you'd read the complete works of Mark Twain, all of the scholarly analyses of Twain, and, in particular, Milton's Paradise Lost, as I have, you wouldn't need to ask such an ignorant question."

• Rejoinder: I'm sorry, but you haven't provided a legitimate answer to my challenge. Your reply was no more than a Clionian Deception.

OK, I realize I'm treading on thin ice here so I should probably shut up before being further reprimanded. I apologize but I just couldn't resist! Loomis 06:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. StuRat 10:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority

I have no idea wher this come from and why it is here, but it definetly looks like original research. The entire section is unreferenced (as most of the article, anyways). Besides, it's just incorrect or contradictory to previuos statements.

* The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity.

Whereas above, it' stated that

appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields

. Same for the following point. If the person who put [Linus Pauling] as an example had taken the time to look into the entry about him, he or she would have noticed that he's also

noted as a versatile scholar for his expertise in inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, metallurgy, immunology, anesthesiology, psychology, debate, radioactive decay, and the aftermath of nuclear warfare, in addition to quantum mechanics and molecular biology.

. So wrong and with a badly chosen example.

* The authority must be interpreted correctly.

In this case, the matter of dispute is the interpretation of the authority, so the problem persists (X, who is an expert says that Y means... We might agree upon what Y says, but not about what it means)

Next point, Galileo example is non fitting. Galileo stand accused of heresy. His assertion of the sun immobility contradicted the scriptures and the aristotelian view (in this case the authorities).

* The judgment must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample).

and

* A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities.

Both these points require the ability to judge experts qualification, which again cannot resort to be appeal to authority.

In conclusion I'm tempted to delete this whole sections, but I wanted to hear about it first. 194.94.96.194 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I hadn't thought about that, but you are correct. I think that the whole section misses the point entirely: an argument from authority is fallacious always. The section regards the conclusions of an argument from authority being more or less likely correct, which is immaterial. The point is there is no logical connection between something being said by someone, and it being correct or incorrect. This fact can be more or less likely, and the proposer can be more or less trusted... but this has nothing to do with deducting her conclusions from her sole words. — Isilanes 11:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, as I've pointed out above in the section "'Argument' from authority always a fallacy?" Appeal to authority is never a *deductive* argument, but it doesn't necessarily purport to be. In cases where the authority is legitimate and the argument is evidential rather than deductive, there is no fallacy. If you presume that all argument is deductive argument, you're mistakenly ruling out most actual argument in the world, including most of science. Lippard 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Because I said so"

I do not like the current explanation on the parents' "because I said so" stuff, although the previous one was not perfect either. The fact is we are discussing logic here. We are not judging whether kids should obey their parents, or whether parents have the "right" of forcing kids to do whatever they see fit, giving no reason for that. The strict truth is that "because I said so" is a fallacy, in the sense that whatever the parent said is not so because she said so, but rather for other unespecified reasons. It amounts to the same as "apples fall because Newton said so", instead of "because of gravity". — Isilanes 18:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

no absolute authority

There is nothing fallacious in asserting that there's no absolute authority. It's equivalent to saying "nobody is infallible", which is true. It is not at all necessary that somebody be infallible to assert that no one else is. I think we should stick to what has been published (yes, an appeal to authority, but a valid one as a rule of thumb, and official wikipedia policy).

Example concerns

I have some concerns with this article. These entries, specifically.

"Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession, as in "This doctor recommends (brand-name) aspirin" or "Bankers recommend that people have six months' wages in a savings account".

Something must be true because there is a scientific consensus."

These two entries insinuate (at least to me), that even though an expert in the fore-mentioned field is dispensing their professional expert opinion on their appropriate field, that, it is still an appeal to authority. In which case, should I disregard to anything my doctor says since even if there is a scientific consensus regarding to my treatment and that he's a professional, that he's still trying to use his profession as a source for his argument?

In other words, is the person that wrote this really thinking that scientists just write nonsense in science journals in order to boost each others' credentials?

Perhaps it is simply me and my simpleton view on this article... but there are many masturbatory self-invented opinions in this article. Perhaps I shall adopt the stance that just because a philosopher writes an article regarding logical fallacies on Wikipedia, it *certainly* does not make it so. --Sturmwehr 04:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In the logical sense, yes, it is a fallacy to assume because your doctor says something it is true. But that doesn't mean it isn't expedient to listen to your doctor. If what your doctor says is true, it's not true because he says it, but rather for some other reason. That's the issue. NickelShoe (Talk) 12:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok, glad that was cleared up. --Sturmwehr 11:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're not a doctor yourself but are listening to advice from a doctor, you infer that it is true because you have come to a conclusion that he has good reasons for what he says in virtue of his training. You place trust in his statements, and in virtue of that trust you do, in fact, infer that it is true because he has said it. The claim that all appeals to authority are fallacious is in error, that appears to be based on the assumption that all arguments using appeals to authority purport to be deductive arguments, which is wrong. Lippard 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the scientific consensus bit should be fleshed out. I mean, if one has evidence that the scientists in the field carried out the relevant research independently, and the vast majority reached the same conclusion, and the few who hold contrary opinions are using dishonest methods like the cherry-picking of data, then is it a fallacy to appeal to authority in that case? I think Dan Dennett and Sam Harris discussed something similar in "The Four Horsemen" video.

--78.16.27.118 (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the last ATA example--scientific consensus--set apart from the other examples as being "of particular interest"? Particular interest to whom? I understand that in a purely logical sense, an appeal to scientific consensus does not automatically guarantee the truth of a claim--just as the preceding ATA examples are not guaranteed to be true. However, as the example list stands now, by setting scientific consensus apart from the other examples, the article wrongly implies that appeals to scientific consensus warrant special scrutiny.

Appeals to scientific consensus are rightly listed as ATAs, and are on par with the other examples given. However, the statement that appeals to scientific consensus are "of particular interest" is unnecessary and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurker above (talk • contribs) 14:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a distinction between appealing to scientific consensus and appealing to scientific data, making the former an appeal to authority. The difference is:

"F=MA, because of these studies" "F=MA, because I polled 100 leading scientists and 99 of them agreed, making a scientific consensus" (appeal to authority)

Remember that Phrenology was once a recognized science:

"This bump pattern means that a person isn't trustworthy, because these double blind studies confirms the results" "This bump pattern means that a person isn't trustworthy, because I polled 99 of 100 leading phrenologists, and they agreed, making a scientific consensus" (appeal to authority) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougDante (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Examples POV

I just reread the section and realized that it wasn't saying what I thought it was saying. Yes in the sense of truth, a thing is true by the reasons it is true, not the authority.... --Kraftlos (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Poisoning the well

Does the entry of poisoning the well also have some relevance here? Just a quick note since I noticed it wasn't here, yet looking up the phrase was an indirect way that I got here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljpastor (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority is always a fallacy, but there is a reason why most people cannot understand why

There are various direct proofs of how appeal to authority is fallacious IN AN ARGUMENT, even as informal reasoning, but many people refuse to accept these proofs because they believe depending on the authority of others is the only choice. These people are simply less capable than others, and commit further fallacy by trying to enforce their own limitations on others who may be more capable.

It is fallacious to claim something is true because authority X said it, because the only way to be sure that authority X would agree or disagree with a certain argument would be to understand authority X's arguments and reasoning. But if you did understand those arguments and reasoning, you could simply make the argument directly. Thus if a person claims that something is true on this basis they are simply trying to prevent the display of any ability above and beyond their own.

There are certain people in the population who are vastly more proficient at building up large networks of understanding spanning the majority, if not all, of human knowledge. The majority of the population can not do this, do not have an understanding of topics they are exposed to that goes far beyond the information directly presented to them, and rely far more on specialization than others. There are two distinct ways in which people handle information on a subconscious level, one of which emphasizes persuasion and artfully relating ideas, while the other emphasizes understanding and accurately relating ideas. Only people who experience traumatic events early in life seem to truly develop this second subconscious approach to knowledge which means they are rare at best.

Any claim supporting Appeal to Authority in an argument that is of the form "No one person can recreate a large enough set that we can depend solely on arguments making sense" is suspect because it requires the author not only to know this about himself, but also to know it about ALL HUMAN BEINGS. It is far more likely that such a person does not want to accept the possibility that there are people out there more capable of such a feat.

It is a serious problem to justify the attitude that if you do not understand a topic it is ok to reject arguments based on the idea that someone somewhere who is "supposed to be right" as far as you know also rejects the argument.

Remember that the purpose here is to write an encyclopedia article, not to expound your own WP:Original Research. The article needs more referenced material, not less.JQ (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim of "Original Research" has become a propaganda tool to be abused by people who feel they have some special power to control wikipedia content. The concept of Original Research is not even well defined since every wikipedia article requires some degree of originality and is based on various references. More references are not useful if they are a reference to something stupid and wrong. -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.188.25 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with the policy, you're welcome to argue for changing it, or to contribute to a project like Google knols, that encourages OR. But, for the moment, it's the policy, and you should abide by it.JQ (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with JQ. I saw the new version of the article by 96.32.188.25 and was tempted to revert them myself, except that it obviously involved a good deal of work and there may be some merit to merging parts of the new version with the old version. That said, the version by 96.32.188.25 was too much like an editorial and not enough like an encyclopedia article, and I think too much of the original article was cut for no good reason. Furthermore, too many people depend on Wikipedia as a basic source of information to someone to single-handedly decide to change the standards to which new contributions are assessed. Sisterdetestai (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)