Argument from authority
(→Disagreement among experts) |
(→Disagreement among experts) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Disagreement among experts== | ==Disagreement among experts== | ||
| − | When there is significant disagreement among experts this can compromise claims to authority by experts in the relevant field. Examples are psychiatry and economics where there are frequently well qualified experts contradicting each other and they cannot all be correct. Before accepting expert opinion we need to ask ourselves, "Do the experts in this subject agree about this specific issue?" <ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Fallacy: Appeal to Authority]</ref> | + | When there is significant disagreement among experts this can compromise claims to authority by experts in the relevant field. Examples are psychiatry and economics where there are frequently well qualified experts contradicting each other and they cannot all be correct. Before accepting expert opinion we need to ask ourselves, "Do the experts in this subject agree about this specific issue?" <ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Fallacy: Appeal to Authority]</ref> Another area where experts disagree is [[Religion]]. There are any number of [[Theology|theologians]] and [[Religious leaders]] who have spent a lifetime studying the teachings of a particular [[Denomination]] or [[Sect]] of [[Christianity]] or some other religion and many have impressive qualifications. Despite this there is no agreement what [[God]], [[Jesus]] or any other proposed [[deity]], [[supernatural]] entity may or may not have revealed to us. There is not even agreement what deities or other supernatural entities if any exist. |
==Use by creationists== | ==Use by creationists== | ||
Revision as of 12:07, 3 June 2012
| Part of the series on |
| Key articles |
| General logic |
| Bad logic |
“” Provided you ensure that authority’s authority actually applies to the field in question, it’s as good a strategy as any.
|
| —Julian Sanchez[1] |
“” Excess trust in expert advisors seems to be a relatively robust finding, well worth further study. My guess is that the explanation will be deep and important.
|
| — [2] |
Argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority,[3] when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source. Frequently, however, it is often a logical fallacy consisting of an appeal to authority, but on a topic outside of the authority's expertise[4] or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (i.e., is biased). Almost any subject has an authority on every side of the argument, even where there is generally agreed to be no argument.[5]
When someone uses themselves as an authority, it is known as Ipse Dixit - "he himself has said it".
Contents |
Basic examples
An example of misuse would be appealing to Albert Einstein, a noted authority on physics, to support one's political or religious beliefs. While Einstein undoubtedly had political beliefs, he was certainly no politician or experienced in politics to the point where he could make a more informed judgement than most people. He, along with the likes of Stephen Hawking are often quote-mined as being either for or against the existence of God; and the fact that such "authorities" believed in it one way or another is cited as proof of one position being right and the other wrong. The fact that the same individuals can be selectively quoted to back up either position should give a good indication of how useful they are as genuine points in an argument.
Thus, a more accurate phrase would be "Argument or appeal to misleading authority".
Disagreement among experts
When there is significant disagreement among experts this can compromise claims to authority by experts in the relevant field. Examples are psychiatry and economics where there are frequently well qualified experts contradicting each other and they cannot all be correct. Before accepting expert opinion we need to ask ourselves, "Do the experts in this subject agree about this specific issue?" [6] Another area where experts disagree is Religion. There are any number of theologians and Religious leaders who have spent a lifetime studying the teachings of a particular Denomination or Sect of Christianity or some other religion and many have impressive qualifications. Despite this there is no agreement what God, Jesus or any other proposed deity, supernatural entity may or may not have revealed to us. There is not even agreement what deities or other supernatural entities if any exist.
Use by creationists
This fallacy is often used by creationists who appeal to authorities with PhDs[7] in fields outside of biology or geology.[8] This is particularly notable in various petitions that appear on sites such as Answers in Genesis that feature prominent scientists that disagree with evolution (more specifically, ones which believe there is a problem with the current theory, which certainly does not equate to outright rejecting the concept). In these lists and petitions, several reputable scientists may appear but few will actually have any expertise in biology (many are geologists[9]) thereby making them qualified to make an informed and expert judgment on evolution. Project Steve, a pro-evolution version of one of these petitions, on the other hand, has a much, much higher percentage of qualified biologists on its list, and it was a joke to begin with.
Appeal to no authority
Occasionally, this tactic is reversed by appealing to someone who has no qualification or authority on the subject at hand as if this were somehow a valid argument. This is often seen in politics, where the "average Joe" is seen to have more common sense than some pointy-headed intellectual, and in conspiracy theories, where most professionals working in the field are considered partners in the conspiracy or paid off. Another example of this is Airborne, which touts itself as "invented by a schoolteacher."
Potential problems
Accusations of a false appeal to authority, or declaring an argument to be invalid because of a lack of relevant qualifications or expertise runs the risk of encountering the pitfall of the Courtier's Reply. This is the counter fallacy to a misapplied appeal to authority; that the lack of an official and relevant qualification doesn't automatically make the argument invalid.
In order to be fallacious, the argument must appeal to the authority because of their qualification in an irrelevant field and should be irrelevant to the argument at hand. For example, saying "There is no God, because Stephen Hawking said so and is a knowledgeable physicist" is a appeal to a misleading authority as Hawking's qualifications in physics do not automatically make his argument correct - the strength of his actual argument regarding cosmology is what needs to be examined, not his qualification or prior knowledge. While dismissing Hawking's argument because he lacks any qualification in theology is an example of the Courtier's Reply. What is important in both fallacies is that it is the argument, its merits and how its premises form a conclusion that is what should be scrutinised and not the previous qualifications.
See also
External Links
Footnotes
- ↑ Julian Sanchez - Climate Change and Argumentative Fallacies
- ↑ Excess trust in expert
- ↑ "Argument to shame" according to Google Translate, which is kinda cool.
- ↑ Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic - Argumentum Ad Verecundiam
- ↑ See here for a detailed explanation
- ↑ Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
- ↑ This is a magical and mystical qualification in the public's eyes, but it's not that special.
- ↑ Or anything on this list, but listing them all would make this article too tedious to read.
- ↑ Rocks don't evolve that we're aware of... On second thought, maybe they do!
| Articles about logical fallacies | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formal fallacies | |||||
| Affirming the consequent | Denying the antecedent | ||||
| Informal fallacies | |||||
| Red herrings | |||||
| Conditional fallacies | |||||
|
Argument from authority |
|||||
| Fallacious argument styles | |||||