Authority

[JetLeg]

Is there a logical way to show that an argument from authority is actually a fallacy?

[MRC_Hans]

The right way would be to ask the claimant to show how the referenced authority is relevant.

As for instance, when somebody tells you that HRH Prince Charles favours homeopathy, you ask: Does HRH Prince Charles hold any educational degrees that makes him particularly qualified to judge the efficacy of homeopathy?

You know, it is really argument from false authority that is a fallacy.

If I cite Albert Einstein on special relativity, it is not a fallacy.
If I cite Albert Einstein on homeopathy, it probably is.

Hans

[Mashuna]

I asked the Dalai Lama this, and he said 'Yes, the argument from authority is a fallacy'. When I asked him why, he told me 'Because I said so'.

[Marquis de Carabas]

A is a respected and authoritative figure.
A said X.
Therefore, X is true.

There's your argument from authority. It is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow inexorably from the premises. Unless A is omniscient, there remains the possibility that he is simply wrong about X. Unless A is unfailingly honest, there remains the possibility that X is a lie. The truth of X is independent of who asserts it.

[drkitten]

Is there a logical way to show that an argument from authority is actually a fallacy?

Certainly. Find a situation where an authority made a false statement.

For example, Lord Kelvin's famous calculation (http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_age_of_the_suns_heat.html) that the sun could not be billions of years old:


It seems, therefore, on the whole most probable that the sun has not illuminated the earth for 100,000,000 years, and almost certain that he has not done so for 500,000,000 years.

Argument from authority:

Lord Kelvin said that the sun is less than 500,000,000 years old.
Therefore, the sun is less than 500,000,000 years old.

It simply happens to be false (according to the best evidence we have), and therefore argument from authority is a fallacy.

Another example:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Thomas Watson Senior, Chairman of IBM, 1943

Who would be a better authority than the chairman of !BM? Of course, he was also utterly wrong.

Other examples:

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and walked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
--The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
--Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
--David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
--Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895. (Boy, poor Lord Kelvin just takes it in the shorts, doesn't he?)

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
--Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.

[Loss Leader]

Is there a logical way to show that an argument from authority is actually a fallacy?


1. The rules of logic are at odds with my personal beliefs.
2. Thus, the rules of logic are wrong.

How many of these threads will we have?

[JetLeg]

The right way would be to ask the claimant to show how the referenced authority is relevant.

As for instance, when somebody tells you that HRH Prince Charles favours homeopathy, you ask: Does HRH Prince Charles hold any educational degrees that makes him particularly qualified to judge the efficacy of homeopathy?

You know, it is really argument from false authority that is a fallacy.

If I cite Albert Einstein on special relativity, it is not a fallacy.
If I cite Albert Einstein on homeopathy, it probably is.

Hans

Are you saying that special relativity is true because Albert Einstein says so?

[drkitten]

If I cite Albert Einstein on special relativity, it is not a fallacy.


No, it's still a fallacy. Remember that the EPR paradox was originally proposed as a reductio ad absurdam. Einstein said that QM is false (because this particular stupid thing would be a consequence). It turns out that that particular stupid thing is, in fact, a conseequence -- and as far as we know, QM is true.

Einstein also stated that his idea of the "cosmological constant" was the biggest mistake of his career. So even he acknowleges that his "authority" is not all-reaching. Of course, modern science considers the cosmological constant to be brilliant -- so his actual mistake is in considering it a mistake. But the point remains that even Einstein needs his facts checked. Nothing is true, even about special relativity, just because Einstein said it was true.

[drkitten]

1. The rules of logic are at odds with my personal beliefs.
2. Thus, the rules of logic are wrong.

How many of these threads will we have?

Presumably, until he finds the magic way to rephrase these threads that will make his wrong beliefs become true.

I.e. be prepared for a lot of frog-kissing before you find that prince, JetLeg.

[MRC_Hans]

A is a respected and authoritative figure.
A said X.
Therefore, X is true.

There's your argument from authority. It is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow inexorably from the premises. Unless A is omniscient, there remains the possibility that he is simply wrong about X. Unless A is unfailingly honest, there remains the possibility that X is a lie. The truth of X is independent of who asserts it.

As I noted above, an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy. If the the referenced authority is a bona-fide authority on the subject, then the argument is valid and carries some weight. Of course, even the best authority can be wrong. To call on Einstein again, he was certainly a valid authority when he spoke against the quantum theory. His resistance was not something anybody could take lightly. Still, he was wrong.

A special kind of appeal to authority fallacy is to appeal to an outdated authority. For instance, we often see creationists quote Charles Darwin for some faulty claim about evolution. While Darwin is certainly a valid authority on evolution in general, many of his specific claims and ideas are long outdated.

Hans

[Foster Zygote]

Is there a logical way to show that an argument from authority is actually a fallacy?

The argument from authority is the opposite of the ad hominem attack. The former states "X said Y therefore Y is true". The later states "X said Y therefor Y is false". In either case the person making the claim is irrelevant in logic. Only the claim itself and the evidence presented in support of it are relevant. Truth is not determined by authority, authority is earned through verification of truth.

[MRC_Hans]

Are you saying that special relativity is true because Albert Einstein says so?

No, I'm saying that Einstein is an important authority on SR, and that his word on the subject carries more weight than that of the average person.

Hans

[Upchurch]

Well here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) is the definitive answer to the question.





;)

[JetLeg]

No, I'm saying that Einstein is an important authority on SR, and that his word on the subject carries more weight than that of the average person.

Hans

So, if Einstein says that SR is true, his word carries more weight than that of the average person?

[Foster Zygote]

Are you saying that special relativity is true because Albert Einstein says so?

Special Relativity is true (as far as we know) because it has been repeatedly tested and verified. It is not true simply because Einstein said so.

[bokonon]

How many of these threads will we have?
As many as you choose to respond to.

[MRC_Hans]

No, it's still a fallacy. Remember that the EPR paradox was originally proposed as a reductio ad absurdam. Einstein said that QM is false (because this particular stupid thing would be a consequence). It turns out that that particular stupid thing is, in fact, a conseequence -- and as far as we know, QM is true.

OK, I'll have to amend it. Also seeing how JetLag interprets it:

No authority can be used as conclusive proof of anything. That is always a fallacy.

However, some authorities carry more weight than others. If Rolfe makes a claim on veterinary science, I will need much heavier argumentation to counter it (heck, I won't have the chance of an icecream in hell) than if, say, Kumar makes it.

Hans

[Apology]

Well, it doesn't get any clearer than Marquis and Upchurch's posts I'm afraid.

[drkitten]

As I noted above, an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy.

Yes, I understood you were noting that. You are wrong. Appeal to authority is always a fallacy, since authorities can be wrong, even about areas within their area of expertise.

What you also don't understand -- or didn't mention -- is that a "fallacious" argument can still be evidence. A "fallacy" is simply an argument that might result in an incorrect conclusion, but it can still be partial evidence in favor of a point.

The fact that Einstein said something about SR makes it likely to be true, and if I don't have any better evidence to go on, I am likely to accept it provisionally until/unless better evidence comes along. But the search for better evidence will nevertheless continue. The fact that Einstein said something makes it perhaps credible. Argument from authority, howver, would claim that Einstein's statement makes it true.

See the difference?

[JetLeg]

OK, I'll have to amend it. Also seeing how JetLag interprets it:

No authority can be used as conclusive proof of anything. That is always a fallacy.

However, some authorities carry more weight than others. If Rolfe makes a claim on veterinary science, I will need much heavier argumentation to counter it (heck, I won't have the chance of an icecream in hell) than if, say, Kumar makes it.

Hans

So you say that if Rolfe gives certain arguments, the mere fact that he has a Ph.D. in veterinary science will cause you to give more weight to the arguments, compared to a person who doesn't? As if the arguments change somehow, depending on the person who says them?

[drkitten]

So, if Einstein says that SR is true, his word carries more weight than that of the average person?

Absolutely. (Assuming, of course, Einstein were still alive and saying things.) Einstein is a card-carrying expert in the field of SR and is much more familiar with the evidence than you or I. Similarly, I am inclined to give more weight to statements about on what playing conditions are in the NFL from Peyton Manning than I am to statements by my high school biology teacher --- but I'd give more weight to the bio teacher if the statements were about the life cycle of Monarch butterflies.

[JetLeg]

Absolutely. (Assuming, of course, Einstein were still alive and saying things.) Einstein is a card-carrying expert in the field of SR and is much more familiar with the evidence than you or I. Similarly, I am inclined to give more weight to statements about on what playing conditions are in the NFL from Peyton Manning than I am to statements by my high school biology teacher --- but I'd give more weight to the bio teacher if the statements were about the life cycle of Monarch butterflies.

As if the arguments change somehow depending on the person who says them??


Would you take the Dalai Lama as an expert on meditation? On the existance of Nirvana?

[Jimbo07]

So you say that if Rolfe gives certain arguments, the mere fact that he has a Ph.D. in veterinary science will cause you to give more weight to the arguments, compared to a person who doesn't? As if the arguments change somehow, depending on the person who says them?

Lacking the resources (time, mostly) to independently verify all claims, I will accept the claims of a veterinarian over, say, a pizza delivery person, when it comes to the health of animals.

This does not make every word from the vet TRUE, it just provides a way to bet...

or in other words, what DrK said.

[drkitten]

As if the arguments change somehow depending on the person who says them??

The arguments do not change, but the credibility of the arguments do.

Basically, "authority" is short-hand for familiarity with the evidence, something that a practicing veterinary surgeon like Rolfe has in abundance, and Kumar does not.


Would you take the Dalai Lama as an expert on meditation? On the existance of Nirvana?

Only to the extent that his "expertise" was based on evidence. I'd be happy to take him as an expert on "how to meditate." Not so on Nirvana unless he can show me evidence upon which his expertise is based.... (Something, I note, that Rolfe is happy to do when asked.)

I will similarly accept a theology professor's expertise on doctrine and commentary, less so on the existence of God. There are lots of books that I have not read that she has (and a glance at her library shelves will confirm that). She can show me that the evidence exists and I'll take her word for what it says in the absence of time to read them myself. But she can't show me evidence for God....

[MRC_Hans]

So, if Einstein says that SR is true, his word carries more weight than that of the average person?Oversimplifying again. Since we have carefully verified SR, anybody's claim that SR is true is equally valid.

I think that if you really try, you can understand the difference between soembody who is a highly accompliced researcher or other authority on a subject, and one who has only average knowledge.

If you say that the Great Chinese Wall was really built by the Mongol tribes to keep the Chinese in, I'll just laugh. If some accompliced researcher of Chinse history says so, I'll probably want to do some checking before I form an opinion.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Argument from authority, however, would claim that Einstein's statement makes it true.

See the difference?Under that definition, it is always a fallacy, yes. I see the difference. The question is whether JetLag does.

Hans

[Taffer]

The form "X is true because Y says so" is always a fallacy. The argument "X is likely true because Y says so, and Y is an expert on X" is not a fallacy.

[rocketdodger]

This does not make every word from the vet TRUE, it just provides a way to bet...



So don't you think, JetLeg, when it comes to something as important as you claim spirituality is, that accepting arguments from authority without doing your own fact checking is pretty goddamn stupid?

Why would you "bet" on something that important...

[MRC_Hans]

So you say that if Rolfe gives certain arguments, the mere fact that he has a Ph.D. in veterinary science will cause you to give more weight to the arguments, compared to a person who doesn't? As if the arguments change somehow, depending on the person who says them?The weight I give to the arguments change, not the arguments themselves. And it requires that the statement is within that person's area of expertice. For instance, if Rolfe were to make a claim about electronics, and I disagree, I wouldn't hesitate (much) to simply tell her she's wrong. Because that's my area of expertice.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

The form "X is true because Y says so" is always a fallacy. The argument "X is likely true because Y says so, and Y is an expert on X" is not a fallacy.Yeah, that's what I have been trying to say :o.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, I notice it's JetLeg. Sorry, my error wasn't intentional.

...But fun.

Hans

[Loss Leader]

So you say that if Rolfe gives certain arguments, the mere fact that he has a Ph.D. in veterinary science will cause you to give more weight to the arguments, compared to a person who doesn't? As if the arguments change somehow, depending on the person who says them?


First of all, JetLeg, you have ignored everyone's answers regarding appeal to authority except Hans. This is presumably because Hans comes the closest to giving you the answer you want. Read Upchurch's link.

Second of all, you (and Hans) are skipping a step. The weight we give an authority on a subject is, itself, its own mini-argument. It goes like this:


1. We cannot understand the arguments regarding the truth of A.
2. The Expert has a special understanding of these arguments that we do not.
3. The Expert is in a better position to determine the truth of A.

Please note three things: If we can understand the arguments regarding the truth of A, we have no need for the Expert.

Second, please understand that the Expert cannot avail himself of an appeal to authority. The Expert must use the rules of logic to determine the truth of A. If his determination is not based on logic, his opinion does not settle an issue.

Third, if the truth of A is unknowable using the rules of logic, even by an Expert, then his opinion is only evidence for the truth of A. It cannot satisfy logical sufficiency but may satisfy some lower burden of proof like that needed for scientific testing or reasonable doubt in a criminal case or probable cause for an arrest.

So, let's take the proposition "Gas chromatography can identify the element Boron with 100% accuracy." I have no idea if it can or cannot. I turn to my Expert physicist/chemist guy. She assures me that she has logically ruled out all other possibilities and, using lots of science, has proven that the statement is true. I am justified in believing the statement is true.

How about the proposition, "The US Constitution contains an implied right of privacy"? This statement is essentially unknowable. No amount of logical deduction can ever cause anybody after any amount of study to be able to say with absolute logical certainty that this is true. Thus, it doesn't matter what our experts say. They may be able to convince a judge somewhere that, to a legal certainty, there's a right to privacy. But logical certainty is out of the question.

[Apology]

The form "X is true because Y says so" is always a fallacy. The argument "X is likely true because Y says so, and Y is an expert on X" is not a fallacy.

We certainly would never be able to get by in day-to-day life if we didn't accept arguments on the basis of authority from time to time as you describe in this example. I accept things like the Special Theory of Relativity on this type of authority, since I'm not capable of checking Einstein's calculations myself.

The important thing to realize is that in your example, you show how we make a qualified appeal to authority by adding "and Y is an expert on X." Y could still be wrong about his assertions on X. All we've done is hedged our bets that Y is not wrong by making sure he's an expert on X before appealing to Y as an authority. It's still a fallacious argument that could come back to bite us on the butts some day. However, when that happens, it's rarely a big loss. I don't feel like some sort of a huge loser when an animal that was presumed extinct is found alive later because I took it on authority that the species was extinct in the first place. I try to be aware of what things I'm taking on authority so I can be aware of potential fallacies in my positions.

[MRC_Hans]

First of all, JetLeg, you have ignored everyone's answers regarding appeal to authority except Hans. This is presumably because Hans comes the closest to giving you the answer you want. Read Upchurch's link.

Second of all, you (and Hans) are skipping a step. The weight we give an authority on a subject is, itself, its own mini-argument. It goes like this:


1. We cannot understand the arguments regarding the truth of A.
2. The Expert has a special understanding of these arguments that we do not.
3. The Expert is in a better position to determine the truth of A.

*snip*Oh, I quite agree. I did not remember any other posts by JetLeg, so I did not expect his/her line of argumentation. Otherwise I would have tried to be much more concise.

Hans

[drkitten]

Oh, I quite agree. I did not remember any other posts by JetLeg, so I did not expect his/her line of argumentation. Otherwise I would have tried to be much more concise.

This is unfortunately his standard modus operandi; he recognizes (or has been told) that the standard pro-theistic arguments are fallacious, but he wants to know whether or not that is actually bad. We've gone through this particular dance with regard to special pleading, appeal to emotion, argumentam ad hominem and a few others that I can't recall off the top of my head.

On the other hand, he's at least well-enough versed in logic to know the fallacies, unlike a number of other participants on this forum.

[Cleon]

Are you saying that special relativity is true because Albert Einstein says so?

Another good rule of thumb is that if you have to begin your question with "are you saying," the answer is almost always "no." It's a cheap way to put words in someone else's mouth.

[JetLeg]

So don't you think, JetLeg, when it comes to something as important as you claim spirituality is, that accepting arguments from authority without doing your own fact checking is pretty goddamn stupid?

Why would you "bet" on something that important...

Um, I must admit that there is something which does not seem smart about it.

But my mind does not function in too logical a way now, so this is the way I have.

[Loss Leader]

Oh, I quite agree.


Yes, well, I had no doubt you understood you. With JetLeg, though, one must be especially precise.

[linusrichard]

How about the proposition, "The US Constitution contains an implied right of privacy"? This statement is essentially unknowable. No amount of logical deduction can ever cause anybody after any amount of study to be able to say with absolute logical certainty that this is true. Thus, it doesn't matter what our experts say. They may be able to convince a judge somewhere that, to a legal certainty, there's a right to privacy. But logical certainty is out of the question.

This is an interesting point. Some would say that the US Constitution contains whatever the Supreme Court says it contains. If we accept this, the argument from authority becomes (in this specific case) a non-fallacy because the fact of the authority saying it actually makes it true. That is:

1. Assume that the Constitution contains what the Supreme Court says it contains, by definition.
2. The Supreme Court says that the Constitution contains an implied right of privacy (e.g. Griswold, Roe).
Therefore
3. The Constitution does contain an implied right of privacy.

But then, that all hinges on the initial assumption, which is more a question of jurisprudence than logic, and it's not my intention to start an argument on jurisprudence.

Similarly, if X says "I apologize to you" or "My expressed opinion on cherries is that they are tasty," then as a result of these statements, it is reasonable to say that "X apologized to me," or that "X's expressed opinion on cherries is that they are tasty." That is, the mere saying of the thing makes it true. A special case.

[Jimbo07]

This is an interesting point. Some would say that the US Constitution contains whatever the Supreme Court says it contains. If we accept this, the argument from authority becomes (in this specific case) a non-fallacy because the fact of the authority saying it actually makes it true.

Now that's interesting, some authorities are authorities by definition, not by the validity of their arguments. For example, someone who writes a dictionary entry as an authority on what that entry says, regardless of what anybody else says. Even if others disagree about the word itself, that person is an authority on the entry.

If science encompasses our knowledge of the physical world, what is knowledge of things like alphabets and fan fiction and other made-up stuff called?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Similarly, if X says "I apologize to you" or "My expressed opinion on cherries is that they are tasty," then as a result of these statements, it is reasonable to say that "X apologized to me," or that "X's expressed opinion on cherries is that they are tasty." That is, the mere saying of the thing makes it true. A special case.
The mere saying of the thing makes it true that the thing was said. It does not speak to the truth of the thing itself.

[linusrichard]

The mere saying of the thing makes it true that the thing was said. It does not speak to the truth of the thing itself.

But sometimes it does. If X says to me: "I apologize to you," then I can not only say "X said he apologized to me," but also "X apologized to me." Likewise, if X says to me: "My expressed opinion on cherries is that they are tasty," then I can not only say "X said that his expressed opinion on cherries is that they are tasty," but also "X's expressed opinion on cherries is that they are tasty."

It may be a rare exception, but there are some things that are made true by saying them. And like I said before, some people would say that what the Supreme Court says about the Constitution is an example of it. Not a position I want to argue the pros and cons of, just one I wanted to note the existence of.

[Marquis de Carabas]

But sometimes it does. If X says to me: "I apologize to you," then I can not only say "X said he apologized to me," but also "X apologized to me." Likewise, if X says to me: "My expressed opinion on cherries is that they are tasty," then I can not only say "X said that his expressed opinion on cherries is that they are tasty," but also "X's expressed opinion on cherries is that they are tasty."
Um, but that's what I said. Apologize is just a particular type of saying, and expressed opinion another. All you can say for sure is that X said these things. You cannot be certain that X truly regrets what he apologized for nor that he really finds cherries tasty.

[rocketdodger]

Um, I must admit that there is something which does not seem smart about it.

But my mind does not function in too logical a way now, so this is the way I have.

It doesn't need to be logical. Just concerned, for god's sake. If your actions on this Earth, in this life, are as important as you say they are, then you should really think twice when people try to dictate those actions.

[Loss Leader]

This is an interesting point. Some would say that the US Constitution contains whatever the Supreme Court says it contains. If we accept this, the argument from authority becomes (in this specific case) a non-fallacy because the fact of the authority saying it actually makes it true. That is:

1. Assume that the Constitution contains what the Supreme Court says it contains, by definition.
2. The Supreme Court says that the Constitution contains an implied right of privacy (e.g. Griswold, Roe).
Therefore
3. The Constitution does contain an implied right of privacy.


You're assuming that time is static. The fact that the SCt. says there's a right to privacy may settle the question but only for so long as it takes the SCt. to say it. Then, it becomes an open question again because the SCt. has the power to overrule itself. The example of "separate but equal" should suffice to demonstrate that a thing which the Supremes say is true does not necessarily remain true.


But then, that all hinges on the initial assumption, which is more a question of jurisprudence than logic, and it's not my intention to start an argument on jurisprudence.


Sadly, arguing jurisprudence is pretty much all I ever want to do.


For example, someone who writes a dictionary entry as an authority on what that entry says, regardless of what anybody else says. Even if others disagree about the word itself, that person is an authority on the entry.


I disagree. The words of the entry remain the words of the entry regardless of the beliefs of the person who wrote the words. So long as a thing is knowable to a lay person, no special truthful status may be conferred on the individual who states the knowable thing.

Ronald Reagan said, "Mr. Brezhnev, tear down this wall," or something like it. But towards the end of his life, he was a very poor authority on whether he ever said it. It doesn't change the fact that he did.

[linusrichard]

You're assuming that time is static. The fact that the SCt. says there's a right to privacy may settle the question but only for so long as it takes the SCt. to say it. Then, it becomes an open question again because the SCt. has the power to overrule itself. The example of "separate but equal" should suffice to demonstrate that a thing which the Supremes say is true does not necessarily remain true.

That's a good point. The question then is, did "separate but equal" remain "true" until Brown, or did it stop being "true" some time before Brown, and Brown was the Court recognizing that it was no longer "true"?

[slingblade]

That's a good point. The question then is, did "separate but equal" remain "true" until Brown, or did it stop being "true" some time before Brown, and Brown was the Court recognizing that it was no longer "true"?

I'd quibble with the use of the word "true" in this case.

Specifically, "separate but equal" was never true, because those who were separate were never equal.

[Loss Leader]

That's a good point. The question then is, did "separate but equal" remain "true" until Brown, or did it stop being "true" some time before Brown, and Brown was the Court recognizing that it was no longer "true"?


That is a question that has no definite answer.

Let's look at two contrasting examples:

Plessy v. Ferguson established "separate but equal" and those states who cared about keeping blacks and whites separate considered it "true" right up untill the SCt. overruled itself (and for some time thereafter). It was specifically overturned by Brown.

But consider the decision in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust. That was the case where the Supremes declared that the source of income mattered as to how it was taxed and effectively killed the federal income tax. Afterwards, though, just about every government body, every lower court and even the SCt. regretted the decision. This began an eighteen year game of "pretend we're not going against Pollock" wherein courts contorted themselves into all kinds of shapes in order to classify things as income not subject to apportionment. Then, the states just ratified the 16th Amendment and were done with the whole thing.

When did Plessy stop being the law of the land? When did Pollock? I think it's a little like asking when a puppy becomes a dog. There are puppies and there are adult dogs and somehow one becomes the other without there ever being a clear delineation.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Is there a logical way to show that an argument from authority is actually a fallacy?

Argumentum ad vericundiam
This is a move in argument that may or may not be fallacious, depending on the circumstances. It means an appeal to authority, an example of which could be thus:
You say philosophy is important, but Professor X says it's a waste of time.Here the speaker refers to the authority of the professor to counter the claim that philosophy is important. The problem is that the presumed authority may or may not be relevant: if the professor is (or was) a lifelong student of philosophy and decided after years working in the field that it really is a waste of time, then perhaps we should look into his reasons for saying so? On the other hand, if he is a professor of mineralogy, say, then—on the face of it—his opinion bears no more or less weight than anyone else's. It may be that additional factors are important: perhaps this professor has also studied philosophy or is known to us to be a particularly trustworthy and astute individual whose opinion we have come to value?
In short, appealing to authority where the authority does know (or is expected to know) what he or she is talking about is a legitimate move in argument, but when the authority's expertise is not relevant then it is fallacious—indeed, a fallacy of relevance, as before.
Matters are not always so clear-cut, though. Even if the authority in question really is an authority in the field, it may be that the question under consideration is one of much controversy among his or her fellow academics. In our example, other philosophy professors may be found who say that philosophy is important, so that appealing to authorities on one or other side or an argument does no more than appraise us of what they think. Take another instance:
Professor Y, a highly respected biologist at a prestigious university, says that the likelihood of live evolving on Mars is so small that, for practical purposes, we can assume it didn't; therefore spending money on searching for life on the red planet is a waste of valuable resources.Here the implicit idea behind the criticism is that with only a finite amount of money to go around and other deserving causes in need of support, why should we support a quest that academics like Professor Y agree is very likely to fail? Is this argument fallacious? It depends: we would need to know more information, such as whether the professor is an expert in the appropriate area of biology and if there is any controversy among similar experts. If the professor's opinion is indicative of the relevant biological community, then perhaps this is information we should keep in mind when forming an opinion on the issue? On the other hand, if the professor is something of a maverick and the weight of biological opinion goes against him or her, then appealing to him or her as an authority could be seen as fallacious, distracting us from the point at issue. In general, we need to be careful in assessing the value of expert testimony, as well as its relevance. http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_vericundiam

[Mobyseven]

Yes, I understood you were noting that. You are wrong. Appeal to authority is always a fallacy, since authorities can be wrong, even about areas within their area of expertise.

Respectfully, no.

There are situations where appeal to authority is not a fallacy - those cases where the authority is in a unique position to know or decide the truth of the matter.

This will rarely (never) come up in scientific arguments, however could certainly be considered in, for example, a political argument.

P1: The President said that we will go to war with Tonga.
P2: The President is an authority with the power to declare war.
P3: Any person with the power to declare war is in the position to know who we will go to war with.
C: We will go to war with Tonga.

Still an argument from authority, but not a fallacious argument from authority.

[blobru]

... This will rarely (never) come up in scientific arguments...

That made me think of the most famous [fallacious] argument from authority of all time: Aristotle's Law of Falling Bodies.

Aristotle says objects with different weights fall at different speeds.
For almost 2,000 years, people accept his authority. (It still amazes me that for two millienia no one bothers to check!)

Galileo says no, objects of different weights fall at the same speed.
Galileo does (or is aware of) an experiment dropping balls of different weight from the top of the Tower of Pisa.
They hit the ground simultaneously (or almost, allowing for air resistance).

There ends the argument from authority; here begins modern science.

[Spindrift]

Respectfully, no.

There are situations where appeal to authority is not a fallacy - those cases where the authority is in a unique position to know or decide the truth of the matter.

This will rarely (never) come up in scientific arguments, however could certainly be considered in, for example, a political argument.

P1: The President said that we will go to war with Tonga.
P2: The President is an authority with the power to declare war.
P3: Any person with the power to declare war is in the position to know who we will go to war with.
C: We will go to war with Tonga.

Still an argument from authority, but not a fallacious argument from authority.

I don't think that's quite an argument from authority.

The president would have to take an action (i.e. declaring war). It is that action that is verifiable that means we will go to war. Just because the President says we will go to war doesn't mean we will until he takes that action. The president could say we're going to war with Tuvalu (while we're in the Pacific) but until he actually does something, his saying it has no bearing on whether we're actually at war yet.

[tkingdoll]

This seems quite simple to me. If someone makes an assertion about cheese, it has a probability of being correct based on that someone's knowledge of cheese. If the someone works in the field of cheese, or has spent 30 years studying cheese, then the probability of their statement being accurate is a lot higher than a statement by a plumber who has never even heard of cheese. It might not be right, but it's more likely to be right. The plumber is less likely to be right cause he literally doesn't know what he's talking about.

The trouble is, if someone is very knowledgeable about cheese, say Professor of Cheese at Cheese University, then people tend to assume that must mean he is also knowledgeable about other things, like string beans. And so if he makes a statement about string beans, lots of people say "ooh a food Prof is saying it, it must be true". When in fact he knows nothing about string beans whatsoever.

And some people even think if that someone has a PhD and Professorship in one subject, they must know everything. Cause professorships are hard to get and those that have them must be ever so smart and therefore wouldn't make statements about stuff if they weren't sure. So a chemist makes a comment about evolution, and people say "he's a smart scientist, he must know what he's talking about and he says evolution is rubbish". But he doesn't necessarily know any more about evolution than Prof Cheese.

That's that one sorted. What's next? I can do a nice explanation of the slippery slope fallacy using Princess Diana and a windmill.

[Mobyseven]

I don't think that's quite an argument from authority.

The president would have to take an action (i.e. declaring war). It is that action that is verifiable that means we will go to war. Just because the President says we will go to war doesn't mean we will until he takes that action. The president could say we're going to war with Tuvalu (while we're in the Pacific) but until he actually does something, his saying it has no bearing on whether we're actually at war yet.

I would have to disagree here - perhaps my example was not the best, but there are some arguments from authority that are valid.

To fully flesh this out, the conditions for a valid argument would be:

The authority is in the unique position to know or decide the truth of a statement.
The authority is not lying about the truth of the statement.

As a disclaimer, while the argument for authority is valid in the above circumstance, it is still a very weak argument. There should always be evidence for something that is independant of expert opinion, otherwise all you have is an opinion.

For the 'war' example, deployment of troops to Vanuatu (since we're island hopping) in conjuction with pre-emptive bombing campaigns would be far better evidence that a country is at war than the say-so of their President. But it doesn't mean that the original argument is or was fallacious.

[drkitten]

Respectfully, no.

There are situations where appeal to authority is not a fallacy - those cases where the authority is in a unique position to know or decide the truth of the matter.

Disrepectfully.... no.

You example fails, since the (US) president does not have the authority to declare war -- and just because the President says that the country will go to war doesn't mean that Congress will agree. Or even that he will submit a proposed declaration of war to Congress.

But even in the general sense, your point fails.

The sentences of which you talk are technically called performatives. And they're different in both form and content from declarative sentences (the most famous examples are probably "I now pronounce you man and wife," and "I now confer upon you the degree of ..." -- at least that's what most linguists use as examples). But performative sentences are, by definition, not declarative sentences -- and only declarative sentences can be true or false.

The sentence "I know pronounce you man and wife" may in fact make the related sentence "you are man and wife" true. But even then, there are a number of other conditions that need to be fulfilled for the related declarative sentence to be true -- and if those other conditions are not fulfilled, the simple fact that a priest pronounced the magic words is insufficient. (For example, the two people involved need to be of appropriate sex in many states, and not closely related.) Therefore, the argument from authority fails.


P1: The President said that we will go to war with Tonga.
P2: The President is an authority with the power to declare war.
P3: Any person with the power to declare war is in the position to know who we will go to war with.
C: We will go to war with Tonga.

Still an argument from authority, but not a fallacious argument from authority.

Nope. Presidents can lie. Since the president could have lied in P1, C does not necessarily follow. Presidents can also change their mind (if Tonga capitulates, for example). Since C does not necessarily follow, the argument is fallacious.

[drkitten]

I would have to disagree here - perhaps my example was not the best, but there are some arguments from authority that are valid.

To fully flesh this out, the conditions for a valid argument would be:

The authority is in the unique position to know or decide the truth of a statement.
The authority is not lying about the truth of the statement.

But since the second condition isn't part of the argument, that doesn't make argument from authority valid. The second condition is equivalent to stating that the statement made is true (since the authority didn't lie about it.)

Big deal. The same statement applies to me. If I truthfully say that the address of the White House is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then of course it's true. But it's not "authority" that makes it true. It's the assumption that I made a true statement.


For the 'war' example, deployment of troops to Vanuatu (since we're island hopping) in conjuction with pre-emptive bombing campaigns would be far better evidence that a country is at war than the say-so of their President. But it doesn't mean that the original argument is or was fallacious.

Yes, it does. There can, by definition, be no better evidence than a non-fallacious argument, since such an argument can, by definition never be wrong.

[Mobyseven]

Disrepectfully.... no.

You example fails, since the (US) president does not have the authority to declare war -- and just because the President says that the country will go to war doesn't mean that Congress will agree. Or even that he will submit a proposed declaration of war to Congress.

But even in the general sense, your point fails.

The sentences of which you talk are technically called performatives. And they're different in both form and content from declarative sentences (the most famous examples are probably "I now pronounce you man and wife," and "I now confer upon you the degree of ..." -- at least that's what most linguists use as examples). But performative sentences are, by definition, not declarative sentences -- and only declarative sentences can be true or false.

The sentence "I know pronounce you man and wife" may in fact make the related sentence "you are man and wife" true. But even then, there are a number of other conditions that need to be fulfilled for the related declarative sentence to be true -- and if those other conditions are not fulfilled, the simple fact that a priest pronounced the magic words is insufficient. (For example, the two people involved need to be of appropriate sex in many states, and not closely related.) Therefore, the argument from authority fails.



Nope. Presidents can lie. Since the president could have lied in P1, C does not necessarily follow. Presidents can also change their mind (if Tonga capitulates, for example). Since C does not necessarily follow, the argument is fallacious.
But since the second condition isn't part of the argument, that doesn't make argument from authority valid. The second condition is equivalent to stating that the statement made is true (since the authority didn't lie about it.)

Big deal. The same statement applies to me. If I truthfully say that the address of the White House is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then of course it's true. But it's not "authority" that makes it true. It's the assumption that I made a true statement.




Yes, it does. There can, by definition, be no better evidence than a non-fallacious argument, since such an argument can, by definition never be wrong.

I stand corrected.:boxedin:

[MRC_Hans]

Respectfully, no.

There are situations where appeal to authority is not a fallacy - those cases where the authority is in a unique position to know or decide the truth of the matter.

As you say, this is not normal in science, but of course in religion, and, to a lesser degree, in politics.

However, I don't think you san say there is a sharp limit. An appeal to authority can be anywhere on a continuous scale from an obvious fallacy (e.g. British royalty in homeopathy) to absolutely valid (e. g. the pope on current catolic doctrine).

However, the normal form of appeal to authority, when used in debate, tends to be "my authority beats yours". Here, it's up to the opponent to decide whether she accepts the authority or not, but I don't think a reasonable retort, provided the referenced authority is relevant at all, is to just say "appeal to authority", you should either motivate your rejection of the authority or, as I suggested in my very first post in this thread, request that the claimant explain why the authority is valid.

Herein lies, of course, a considerable risk that the discussion becomes derailed into a discussion about the merits of some authority, instead of the original subject.

Hans

[Roboramma]

However, the normal form of appeal to authority, when used in debate, tends to be "my authority beats yours".
This reminds me of one time when I was talking about evolution with a friend of mine. He made some claim about evolution which didn't make sense to me, and I started to explain why:
Him: X,Y and Z are true.
Me: That doesn't make sense to me because of A, B, and C.
Him: Well, my friend who's a biologist told me X, Y, and Z are true, and I tend to think his understanding of evolution is better than yours.
Me: Maybe it is, but from my perspective you learned what you know about evolution from a friend who's a biologist. I learned what I learned about it from books by biologists, some of whom are at the top of their feilds. I have no problem admitting that your friend probably knows more than me - but you may as easily have misunderstood him as I misunderstood the books I read. Now, here are the facts that we can independantly varify that support my position (I think my argument had something to do with reproduction in ants, but don't remember much).


Here, it's up to the opponent to decide whether she accepts the authority or not, but I don't think a reasonable retort, provided the referenced authority is relevant at all, is to just say "appeal to authority", you should either motivate your rejection of the authority or, as I suggested in my very first post in this thread, request that the claimant explain why the authority is valid. I think it's a decent argument - so and so in an authority, and said such and such. But we have to be careful accepting it outright.
For instance, as I point out in my above example, it's possible that the person making the appeal to authority just doesn't understand what the authority actually said. Worse still is the possibility of misrepresentation - both of these tend to occur when woos start taking about homeopathy for instance.

That said, there are some subjects that I just don't understand well enough to base my opinions on anything but argument from authority.

[Loss Leader]

Herein lies, of course, a considerable risk that the discussion becomes derailed into a discussion about the merits of some authority, instead of the original subject.



Assuming that it is impossible to determine the question to a logical certainty, arguing about which expert knows more is not a derail. Of course, everyone must recognize that logical proof has gone out the window and they are now only attempting to prove the proposition to a much lower standard of evidence.

[TX50]

Talking of appeals to authority...
I just now got a leaflet peddling "Dianetics" in my junk mail. It has a photo'
of Albert Einstein and a line saying "Einstein, the world's greatest ever
physicist, says that we use only 10% of our brains". Well, that's me
convinced! :D

[Marquis de Carabas]

Talking of appeals to authority...
I just now got a leaflet peddling "Dianetics" in my junk mail. It has a photo'
of Albert Einstein and a line saying "Einstein, the world's greatest ever
physicist, says that we use only 10% of our brains". Well, that's me
convinced! :D
That's not enough to convince me. Everyone knows that it has to be written Greatest. Physicist. EVAR. or it doesn't count.

[TX50]

That's not enough to convince me. Everyone knows that it has to be written Greatest. Physicist. EVAR. or it doesn't count.

Well, it was originally in Dutch. He did have reeeely wild hair though.

[JetLeg]

Certainly. Find a situation where an authority made a false statement.

For example, Lord Kelvin's famous calculation (http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_age_of_the_suns_heat.html) that the sun could not be billions of years old:



Argument from authority:

Lord Kelvin said that the sun is less than 500,000,000 years old.
Therefore, the sun is less than 500,000,000 years old.

It simply happens to be false (according to the best evidence we have), and therefore argument from authority is a fallacy.

Another example:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Thomas Watson Senior, Chairman of IBM, 1943

Who would be a better authority than the chairman of !BM? Of course, he was also utterly wrong.

Other examples:

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and walked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
--The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
--Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
--David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
--Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895. (Boy, poor Lord Kelvin just takes it in the shorts, doesn't he?)

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
--Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.

Yes, it is a good way.

But can one do the same with Burden of Proof?

[drkitten]

Yes, it is a good way.

But can one do the same with Burden of Proof?

Yes. From Wikipedia:


A classic example comes from Criswell's final speech at the end of Ed Wood's Plan 9 from Outer Space: "My friends, you have seen this incident, based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen?". Considering that the incident in question involved grave robbers from space, the burden of proof is being incorrectly assigned.

[JetLeg]

Yes. From Wikipedia:

If I would say

"DrKitten is a japanese women, 37 years old, with blue eyes. The burden is on you to show that it is not so.",

and you would prove that you aren't, would that be a good proof that shifting burden of proof is a fallacy?

[drkitten]

If I would say

"DrKitten is a japanese women, 37 years old, with blue eyes. The burden is on you to show that it is not so.",

and you would prove that you aren't, would that be a good proof that shifting burden of proof is a fallacy?

It's pretty good, but it can be improved upon.

If you were to say to someone else on this forum -- the Marquis or Loss Leader, perhaps -- that I were a Japanese woman, 37 years old, with blue eyes, and they failed to prove it, and then I were to reveal myself as a 16-year old green-eyed Australian male model, that would be a better demonstration of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

But you definitely have the idea. Just because I can't prove something false doesn't mean that it's true. For that matter, just because I can't prove something true doesn't mean that it's false. I may not be that good at proving things, I may not have access to all the information that I need, or I may simply not care enough to take the time, despite the patent falsity of your claim.

This is particularly true w.r.t. many claims of the supernatural (such as Plan 9). How do I prove that something didn't happen, when there is no information presented about where or when it was supposed to have happened? Not only do I not have enough information, but Ed Wood deliberately wrote the screenplay to make sure I didn't.

[JetLeg]

Just because I can't prove something false doesn't mean that it's true.

Yes, but when I claim

My (and only my) feelings are a good criteria of the truth status of unfalsifiable hypothesis.

And then shift the burden of proof,

I do not mean to prove that it is true by shifting the burden. I merely want to prove that the idea that my feelings are is as good idea as the idea that they are not. And therefore, there is no reason for you to ridicule me, because the idea that my feelings are is just as probable as that they aren't.

Can you disprove this attitude?

[drkitten]

Yes, but when I claim

My (and only my) feelings are a good criteria of the truth status of unfalsifiable hypothesis.

And then shift the burden of proof,

I do not mean to prove that it is true by shifting the burden. I merely want to prove that the idea that my feelings are is as good idea as the idea that they are not. And therefore, there is no reason for you to ridicule me, because the idea that my feelings are is just as probable as that they aren't.

Can you disprove this attitude?

Yes.

Easily.

If, instead, you made the statement that "DrKitten is a japanese women, 37 years old, with blue eyes," or that "Grave robbers from space have invaded the Earth to reanimate the dead", and want to prove that the idea that those statements are correct is just as good as the idea that they are not correct.

My inability to disprove the grave robbers does not establish their correctness. It doesn't even establish their plausibility. No rational observer would agree that their existence is "just as probable" as their non-existence.

Since shifting the burden of proof does not establish the plausibility of grave robbers from space, it also doesn't establish the plausibility of your feelings being trustworthy.

I can even establish this thing mathematically, if you want to drag probability mathematics into it. You can't prove that I don't have a dollar bill in my pocket right now with a serial number consisting of all 4's. But we can establish mathematically that the probability of that happening is substantially less than one in a million. Therefore, the statement "I have such a bill" is a million times less probable than the statement "I do not have such a bill," again demonstrating the fallacy.

[Skibum]

there is no reason for you to ridicule me


Yes there is...


My (and only my) feelings are a good criteria of the truth status of unfalsifiable hypothesis.

[JetLeg]

Yes.

Easily.

If, instead, you made the statement that "DrKitten is a japanese women, 37 years old, with blue eyes," and want to prove that the idea that those statements are correct is just as good as the idea that they are not correct.

My inability to disprove the grave robbers does not establish their correctness. It doesn't even establish their plausibility.

Since shifting the burden of proof does not establish the plausibility of grave robbers from space, it also doesn't establish the plausibility of your feelings being trustworthy.

But where is your proof that shifting the burden of proof does not establish the plausability? You didn't prove it.

For example, I say

"Loss Leader is a black woman, 50 years old", and for some reason Loss Leader never makes another post in the forums.

I would claim that the fact you are not able to disprove that establishes the plausability. You would claim it doesn't.

Then you would go to great lengths, find the true loss leader, and prove he is not a black woman, 50 years old. That would not prove that that weren't plausible - only that it weren't true.

[drkitten]

But where is your proof that shifting the burden of proof does not establish the plausability? You didn't prove it.

Yes, I did.


For example, I say

"Loss Leader is a black woman, 50 years old", and for some reason Loss Leader never makes another post in the forums.

I would claim that the fact you are not able to disprove that establishes the plausability.

And you would be wrong. The simple fact that less than 1% of the population is 50 years old, less than 50% of the population is black, and only about 50% of the population is female means that the probability of that statement being correct is less than 0.25% (and the probabilty of it being wrong is more than 99%.)

Another proof: Consider the following (unprovable) statements.

A: Loss Leader is 41 years old.
B: Loss Leader is 51 years old.
C: Loss Leader is 61 years old.

Your claim is that the fact that I cannot disprove A renders it "just as probable" as its negation. In other words, p(A) = p(not-A) = 0.5.

A similar argument shows that p(A) = p(B) = p(C) = 0.5. But since these events are all disjoint, the probability of p(A or B) is p(A) + p(B) or 1.0.

Therefore, Loss Leader must be either 41 or 51 years old, and therefore cannot be 61 years old. The probability p(C) must equal 0.0. But we have already established that p(C) = 0.5. Hence, we have a contradiction.

Since your argument can lead to a contradiction, it is fallacious.

[JetLeg]

DrKitten, you use the term "probable" in the strict sense. Where you can actually calculate its probabilty.

I meant it in the loose sense.

A: Loss Leader is 41 years old.
B: Loss Leader is 51 years old.
C: Loss Leader is 61 years old.

A is as reasonable as B as reasonable C.

If I replace the term "probable" with reasonable, then your proof will not work.

[drkitten]

DrKitten, you use the term "probable" in the strict sense. Where you can actually calculate its probabilty.

Yes. But vague definitions will not help.



I meant it in the loose sense.

A: Loss Leader is 41 years old.
B: Loss Leader is 51 years old.
C: Loss Leader is 61 years old.

A is as reasonable as B as reasonable C.

But neither is as reasonable as not-A, not-B, and not-C, respectively. Even in a loose sense, it is much more reasonable for Loss Leader not to be exactly 41 than it is for him to be exactly 41.

The same proof holds with demonstrably unreasonable statements:

A : Loss Leader is Spider-Man
B : Loss Leader is the She-Hulk
C : Loss Leader is Gandalf

While it's certainly true that it's just as reasonable for Loss Leader to be Gandalf as it is to for him to be the She-Hulk, it's still much more reasonable for him to simply be a normal person.

Now, there is one possible out at this point -- but it's fatal. You can define "reasonable" as "not provably incorrect." But at this point, it becomes an exercise in circular reasoning (which is also provably fallacious) combined with an exercise in equivocation. If you claim that it is reasonable (=not provably incorrect) to believe a statement that is not provably incorrect, then that statement is true by circular definition. But it does not support the idea that it is reasonable (has a high probability of being correct, or is something that a rational person would do) to believe in a statement whose only support is a lack of provable incorrectness.

No rational person would believe that LL is the She-Hulk, despite my inability to disprove it. Similarly, no rational person would believe that your feelings are a valid way of establishing the truth.



If I replace the term "probable" with reasonable, then your proof will not work.

Yes, it will.