Question

...
HueyTheGoat

is an appeal to authority inherently a fallacy?
asked on Friday, Jan 10, 2025 02:27:02 PM by HueyTheGoat

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

The answers by Arlo and Mr Wednesday are good.

Additionally, just beware of 'false authorities' - people who have no real expertise in the subject matter. This sometimes confuses people because 'scientists' are seen as interchangeable, when in fact, they are not. For instance, a nuclear physicist won't be an authority on economics (unless they also have rigorous economics training).

This falls under a related fallacy (appeal to false authority).

posted on Sunday, Jan 12, 2025 03:07:29 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Listen to the Dr. Bo Show!

Hello! I am social psychologist and author, Bo Bennett. In this podcast, I take a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter. As of January 2020, this podcast is a collection of topics related to all of my books. Subscribe today and enjoy!

Visit Podcast Page

Answers

...
Mr. Wednesday
2

Not necessarily.

There are a lot of subjects that require a lot of time and specialized knowledge to understand, and a layperson who tries to do so will often make mistakes or miss details. It does, sometimes, become necessary to rely on the opinions of experts.

The way I typically avoid using it fallaciously is to, rather than finding an expert who agrees with me, see what the consensus among experts is, if there is one, and what degree of confidence the community of experts has in this opinion.

answered on Friday, Jan 10, 2025 02:34:17 PM by Mr. Wednesday

Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
AI Fallacy Master writes:
The student's answer provides a reasonable explanation of why an appeal to authority, in itself, is not inherently a fallacy. An appeal to authority becomes fallacious ("argumentum ad verecundiam") when the authority cited is not a legitimate expert in the relevant field or when the context does not warrant deference to expert opinion. However, when used correctly, appeals to authority can be a valid form of reasoning, especially in fields that require specialized, complex knowledge.

The student's approach to avoiding the fallacy by checking the consensus among experts is sound. This decreases the likelihood of relying on a single authority who might have unconventional views. Considering the consensus and the confidence level among experts helps to ensure that the appeal to authority is justified and minimizes the risk of biases, such as cherry-picking experts to support preconceived beliefs. This approach promotes more robust reasoning.
posted on Friday, Jan 10, 2025 02:34:21 PM
...
Arlo
1

Relying on an authority to support a position doesn't make the position wrong; however, citing a presumed authority doesn't make the argument right, either.  If the only reason for holding a position is that some authority supports that position, the reasoning is weak.  

It would be useful to see why the authority supports the position and use that rationale as the basis of your argument.  Then, citing an authority that supports your view can strengthen your argument ... but only if you have an argument in the first place.

answered on Sunday, Jan 12, 2025 11:39:47 AM by Arlo

Arlo Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
AI Fallacy Master writes:
The student's answer accurately addresses the concept of appeal to authority and highlights the potential fallacy it may represent when misused. Here’s a breakdown of the logic and reasoning involved:

1. **Understanding Appeal to Authority**: The student correctly identifies that relying on an authority does not inherently render an argument fallacious. An appeal to authority becomes a fallacy—known as "argumentum ad verecundiam"—when the authority cited is not a genuine expert in the relevant field or when the argument relies solely on the authority's opinion rather than evidence or sound reasoning.

2. **Weak Arguments**: The student notes that purely leaning on an authority without additional reasoning makes the argument weak. This point is crucial because sound arguments should be based on evidence, logic, and reason, not just on the backing of an authority figure.

3. **Rationale from Authority**: They suggest examining why the authority supports the position and using that underlying rationale as part of the argument. This approach strengthens the reasoning because it involves critical assessment and incorporation of evidence, rather than mere assertion.

4. **Strengthening Arguments**: By proposing that one build a foundational argument and then use authoritative support as reinforcement, the student illustrates good reasoning practice. Citing an authority can enhance an argument when it confirms evidence or supports logical conclusions already drawn.

Overall, the student's response effectively addresses potential logical fallacies and provides a principled approach to using authority in arguments.
posted on Sunday, Jan 12, 2025 11:39:52 AM
...
AI Fallacy Master
1
An appeal to authority is not inherently a fallacy, but it can become one depending on the context and how it is used. The appeal to authority, also known as "argumentum ad verecundiam," involves relying on the opinion or statement of an authority figure on a topic. Here are some points to consider regarding this:

1. **Legitimate Use**: Referring to an expert or authority in a particular field can be a valid and reasonable form of argument, especially if the authority's expertise is directly relevant to the issue at hand.

2. **Fallacious Use**: It becomes a fallacy if the authority is not an expert in the relevant field, if there is no consensus among experts, or if the authority's statement is taken as definitive without question or critical evaluation. Additionally, if an authority is cited to support a claim that is outside their area of expertise, this constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority.

3. **Critical Evaluation**: Even when an authority's opinion is invoked validly, it should be subject to critical evaluation. It's crucial to consider the evidence, potential biases, and the reasoning behind the authority's stance.

4. **Bias Awareness**: Be aware of cognitive biases, such as the bandwagon effect or appeal to tradition, which might lead someone to accept an authority's opinion without proper scrutiny simply because the authority is widely respected or customary.

By ensuring that the appeal to authority is used appropriately and in conjunction with sound evidence and critical thinking, it can be a strong component of a logical argument.
answered on Friday, Jan 10, 2025 02:27:27 PM by AI Fallacy Master

AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Dr. Richard
0

No. Not inherently.

The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
 1. Make an observation.
 2. Ask a question.
 3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
 4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
 5. Test the prediction.


If you can reliably replicate the results, the category of the subject under study advances from hypothesis to theory. Then use the results (the feedback step) to make a new question, form new hypotheses and  predictions. All sciences use the scientific method. The scientists in different fields, of course,  ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence. 


The purpose of a test experiment is to determine whether empirical observations agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from the hypothesis. Expert disagreement should lead to debate which furthers knowledge on the issue and lead us closer to a correct answer by eliminating improbable interpretations.


What we reasonably seek is epistemological certainty, that is to say, the conclusion is based upon the available evidence. If more evidence appears or we consider a different way to analyze the current evidence, then the conclusion must change to conform to that.
 
Before trusting an expert, one must determine whether the expert’s claims are valid. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of bias or conflict of interest.


I find it common for two scientists with good credentials to examine the same facts and come to different conclusions. So how do you know which one is right? You have to test the testimony. Otherwise, all you have is a one-sided monologue.

We cannot have a rule by experts, as all too many examples provide. There was a time, for example, when “all” the scientists believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. You would be imprisoned or killed to suggest otherwise. After all, that would be misinformation. 


But there is an issue beyond the experts. Even if an expert is correct in what the expert claims within his field of expertise, it can lead to tragedy. This is because each specialized group sees an ever-shrinking piece of the more giant puzzle of life and focuses on what is minutiae when analyzing the situation as a whole., i.e., the Big Picture. What is a reasonable course of action within their narrow field of expertise, is not reasonable when viewed as a part of the Big Picture. 


Experts tend to examine an issue only from the point of view of their own profession and then opine on areas in which they lack expertise.


Elon Musk described it: “The most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist.” pic.twitter.com/YCupAKTF1D. July 10, 2024.


The world learned this time and again. For example, during the Covid pandemic virologists were concerned only with the virus and not the more significant effects on human life. As a result, the cure became worse than the disease.

You do not need to be an expert in the field under discussion. But you do need to examine the evidence and the process upon which the experts claim to base their conclusion (opinion). The evidence that scientists bring to the table is critically important — not their conclusions —  otherwise, you have abnegated your mind to theirs. 

answered on Friday, Jan 10, 2025 03:09:59 PM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
AI Fallacy Master writes:
The student's response provides a comprehensive view on the use of authority in argumentation, particularly concerning the scientific method and the reliance on expert opinion. Here's a breakdown of the key points and a commentary on the logical aspects:

1. **Not Inherently Fallacious**: The student correctly states that an appeal to authority is not inherently fallacious. Authority can be a valid source of knowledge, especially when the authority is credible, unbiased, and the evidence supports their position.

2. **Scientific Method**: The explanation of the scientific method underscores the importance of evidence-based conclusions. Science relies on empirical data and repeatability, which strengthens the validity of expert testimony when these processes are respected.

3. **Need for Verification**: The student emphasizes that expert claims should be validated through transparent and objective processes. This is a key approach to preventing the fallacy of blind trust in authority.

4. **Expert Disagreement**: Highlighting instances where experts disagree is important. It supports the argument that expert opinion should not be accepted uncritically and points to the value of continual testing and debate in science.

5. **Historical Context**: The student references historical misconceptions, like the flat earth belief, illustrating that scientific consensus can be wrong. This adds weight to the argument that skepticism and verification are vital.

6. **Scope of Expertise**: The argument concerning experts' narrow focus reminds us that even credible authorities may lack a holistic view. This is a caution against over-reliance on expert opinion in isolation.

7. **References to Elon Musk and COVID-19**: These examples suggest the potential pitfalls of expert-focused solutions without considering broader impacts. This can illustrate the fallacy of considering expertise as infallible.

Overall, the student's response provides a nuanced perspective, correctly identifying when an appeal to authority might become fallacious. It highlights the necessity for supporting evidence, critical evaluation, and acknowledgment of the broader context, mitigating the risk of blindly endorsing expert opinion.
posted on Friday, Jan 10, 2025 03:10:10 PM