The "Appeal to Authority fallacy" fallacy

[Beleth]

I want to point out a misunderstanding during krkey's short time with us that might have a bearing on future arguments.

Appealing to authority is not, automatically, a logical fallacy. In other words, sometimes it is a fallacy, and sometimes it is a valid logical tool.

See http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm . As that page mentions,
an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious... and is appropriate at other times.

Just because someone appeals to authority is no reason to summarily dismiss his argument.

[Dancing David]

Quite true, however i have sen some bizzare appeals to authority on this board.

The best was someone with no authority in the subject slamming me for being a social worker because he has some scientific job! Sorry being smart in some places doesn't mean you aren't stupid in others.

The other is the appeal to logic: logic is a closed system it isn't the final arbiter.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Beleth
I want to point out a misunderstanding during krkey's short time with us that might have a bearing on future arguments.I can imagine what was used.

Using the bible as an authority when debating the New Testiment is appropriate.

Using the bible as an authority, trumping all other authorities and sources, when debating history is not appropriate.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I can imagine what was used.

Using the bible as an authority when debating the New Testiment is appropriate.

Using the bible as an authority, trumping all other authorities and sources, when debating history is not appropriate. Not exactly the problem here. krkey was designating which bible scholars would be considered valid authorities, and which wouldn't. Any bible scholar that questioned the historicity of Jesus was a priori unqualified. And there was more. Perhaps he appealed to the bible as authority (not counting the use of bible as historical resource, which can be valid if taken with grain of salt), as I didn't read every post, but if so, that would be some sort of circular argument.

[Yahweh]

Krkey's appeal to authority was a bit unusual, he had a method of "selective" authority that he used to discredit the intergrity of others (which is still a fallacy).

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by hgc
if so, that would be some sort of circular argument.

Even circular arguments may or may not be logical fallacies. Don't give in to the "fallacy" fallacy.

[c4ts]

How could a circular argument be true?

[T'ai Chi]

I committed an appeal to authority argument on this board before.

I nievely said that I have some authority in statistical matters because I have an advanced degree in statistics, and then proceeded to correctly answer all of the other person's statistical questions correctly, while that person failed to even address a single question I proposed.

Is my argument from authority a good one or a bad one?

I've also said that, ceteris paribus, a person with a degree in field X, knows more about field X than a person without a degree in field X.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by c4ts
How could a circular argument be true?

Hey buddy, yeah, you wnat some?, cmon!!! You're wrong! I'm 133t, oh, and the area of a circle with radius r is pi*r^2.

That is a circular argument, and it is true.

;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I committed an appeal to authority argument on this board before.

I nievely said that I have some authority in statistical matters because I have an advanced degree in statistics, and then proceeded to correctly answer all of the other person's statistical questions correctly, while that person failed to even address a single question I proposed.

Is my argument from authority a good one or a bad one?

I've also said that, ceteris paribus, a person with a degree in field X, knows more about field X than a person without a degree in field X.

From Infidels.org, a guide Logic and Web Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#authority):
Argumentum ad verecundiam

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

<blockquote>"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."</blockquote>

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

<blockquote>"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"</blockquote>

and

<blockquote>"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"</blockquote>

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

I would say that your degree in Statistics is an appropriate appeal to authority, however most people mistake an authorative figure as a "be all, end all" arguementitive device.

[Tez]

"Experts in the field disagree" is a tough one. Most fields have many experts, and they are going to disgree about many things. This is going to be true of almost anything that is under active investigation - without it progress would be difficult. It becomes especially tough to make the case where there is a reasonably broad consensus, but a disproportionately-vocal minority disagree.

And then, sometimes the minority may actually be correct. For example, experts in the field of "coping with life as a human being" (i.e. everyone) agree, in the main, that there are supernatural entities of one form or another... (Yes, a stupid example...)

[Yahweh]

What do the skeptics think about Experts in the fields of Parapsychology and Astrology? :D

[c4ts]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Hey buddy, yeah, you wnat some?, cmon!!! You're wrong! I'm 133t, oh, and the area of a circle with radius r is pi*r^2.

That is a circular argument, and it is true.

;)

That's not a circular argument, that 's a threat. The last statement happens to be true, but not for any of the reasons the "argument" provides. So it's still wrong.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by c4ts
How could a circular argument be true?

Simple example: "CAT is spelled 'C'-'A'-'T'." Circular and true.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


Simple example: "CAT is spelled 'C'-'A'-'T'." Circular and true.

Is that an argument or an observation?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by c4ts


Is that an argument or an observation?

Any coherent statement can be an argument for some debate.

In propositional logical terms: For any statement (of the set of coherent statements), There exists a debate; such that -- the statement can be used to argue for a position within the context of the debate.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by c4ts

That's not a circular argument, that 's a threat. The last statement happens to be true, but not for any of the reasons the "argument" provides. So it's still wrong.

It wasn't a fake threat example, it was supposed to be a fake argument example (like someone getting into an arguement...over circles...forget it :) ). Oh well. Here is my second attempt:

Magicians must not reveal their tricks. Hence any magician who reveals their tricks will be looked down upon by the magic community. Therefore magicians are pressured to hide their secrets. Therefore, magicians must not reveal their tricks.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


It wasn't a fake threat example, it was supposed to be a fake argument example. Oh well. Here is my second attempt:

Magicians must not reveal their tricks. Hence any magician who reveals their tricks will be looked down upon by the magic community. Therefore magicians are pressured to hide their secrets. Therefore, magicians must not reveal their tricks.

That's really more of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Faithkills]

"What do the skeptics think about Experts in the fields of Parapsychology and Astrology?" - Yahweh

The same thing they thought about NT scholars I guess:)

In any event an appeal to authority IS a fallacy used in the way krkey used it.

When it's NOT a fallacy it's used in an expository fashion. A logical shorthand used for linking in someone else's arguments like we link in a web site. It doesn't directly prove or disprove anything. The ultimate judgement of validity is merely deferred to the source.

The fallacy is thinking that citing an authority IS proof.

FK

[canadarocks]

I found the following quote from Krkey very circular

"The resurrection does not absolutely proof God. It merely proofs the resurrection."

The resurrection proves the resurrection? No?:hit:

[c4ts]

Originally posted by canadarocks
I found the following quote from Krkey very circular

"The resurrection does not absolutely proof God. It merely proofs the resurrection."

The resurrection proves the resurrection? No?:hit:

That argument has nothing to do with proving the resurrection, it simply states twice that it happened. If the resurrection were true, it would still be a flawed argument.