You're viewing part of a thread.
I don't know if you've read the Wikipedia article but their specific example is of someone who had authority in the field because of their expertise. It's the expertise that gave them authority.
One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[31] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[32][33] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[34] scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,[35][36][33] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[32][37] Even textbooks[32] with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[37] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[38]
Authoritative person said it was so, people deferred to his expertise over findings arguing differently because they trusted his expertise on the subject.
For something to be a logical fallacy it has to be irrational. Having someone quote their expertise in a subject doesn’t mean they are appealing to authority, they’re just aiding the body of evidence that supports their theory.
It's a fallacy when you use their expertise as the proof of something. Something is not true in the argumentative sense because someone is an expert, but of course in the real world if someone is an expert they know their shit better than most.
Authoritative person said it was so, people deferred to his expertise over findings arguing differently because they trusted his expertise on the subject.
Again, you are talking about physical sciences where the rigor of claims must first pass the scientific method. Personal testimony has no grounds within physical sciences, so the claim is irrational.
In physical sciences expert testimony does not add to the body of evidence, because testimony does not affect the observation of a physical phenomenon.
However, in metaphysical processes testimony is considered evidence, as it can shape the way people perceive the argument. In this case evidence isn't absolute proof a physical phenomenon, it's a bit of information that supports your assertion.
We are talking about a metaphysical problem where things like personal testimony are considered a rational argument.
Is it irrational for a court of law to call upon an expert witness? Or should all personal testimony be labeled as an irrational logical fallacy?
It's a fallacy when you use their expertise as the proof of something. Something is not true in the argumentative sense because someone is an expert, but of course in the real world if someone is an expert they know their shit better than most.
No, it really isn't. A fallacy is defined by a failure of rationality or reasoning. At what point is an expert on Nazis interpreting something as a Nazi salute a failure of reasoning?
Utilizing your interpretation, how would someone define a Nazi salute? Is there a scientific formula to determine if someone is a Nazi? Or would you have to study Nazis and their beliefs and use that information to make an educated determination?
In this case I would say you'd have to have an expert's opinion. So stating you are an expert and giving your opinion is a perfectly logical and rational argument.
I was just explaining how the authority can be someone with genuine expertise. It's just that it can be fallacious to consider something true based on just that authority.
No, it really isn't. A fallacy is defined by a failure of rationality or reasoning.
I doubt we'll find a solution to whether it is or isn't, it seems to be a highly contentious topic
While all sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, and therefore, obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible, there is disagreement on the general extent to which it is fallible - historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources.
was just explaining how the authority can be someone with genuine expertise. It's just that it can be fallacious to consider something true based on just that authority.
Yes an authority can be an expert, but being an authority does not implicitly mean you are an expert. Simply appealing to an expert's opinion isn't how the fallacy is defined. The fallacy happens when appealing to the expert is not a reasonable or rational argument, such as your example.
However there are plenty of examples where appealing an expert's testimony is completely rationale.
While all sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, and therefore, obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible
I think you may be misinterpreting this. An appeal to authority in and of itself cannot be logical proof, but it can be part of the body of evidence that supports a logical proof. Logical proof is defined as a series of statements that show how a conclusion formed from a set of premises.
opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources.
Yes, because as we have already discussed it's fallibility is dependent on what kind of argument you are proposing.
Just as in a court case, expert witness testimony can be used to bolster the body of evidence, but depending on the rigor of the court, isn't enough evidence by itself to convict someone.
That doesn't automatically mean that it's illogical, just that it would be illogical to interpret the testimony by itself as logical proof. In the musk case, I think it's fair to say there is a pre-existing body of evidence that supports the speakers affirmation.
In reality it is hard to lable something as an appeal to authority without a prolonged back and forth. If this person couldn't back his assertion, or his only response to a rebuttal is "trust me I'm an expert", then it would be a logical fallacy of appealing to authority. However, unless further questioned, it is at most hearsay.
The appeal to authority is basically the opposite of the ad hominem fallacy.
It is the acceptance of a claim because of the credentials of the person who said it.
It’s a reasonable heuristic for deciding which claims to trust, but it is not a substitute for logical argumentation.
This man who says he’s an authority — and may actually be — has still not provided an argument about why we should consider this a Nazi salute.
Therefore it is fallacious to believe it to have been “proven”.
Again trusting authority is a decent heuristic, but it’s not a source of certainty.
If this expert were to provide some evidence and reasoning, then it would be less fallacious to consider the question closed based on his testimony.
This man who says he’s an authority — and may actually be — has still not provided an argument about why we should consider this a Nazi salute. Therefore it is fallacious to believe it to have been “proven”.
Right, but he is not claiming that is the only argument available. How is providing credentials with his statement irrational?
We are not having a conversation with the man, it's a social media post with a character limit. You would have to assume that he cannot provide additional evidence if you want to label this as a logical fallacy.
This is why statements made outside of the courts ability to directly question as labeled as hearsay, not a fallacy. It very well may be true, and can provide toward the body of evidence. However, we're not able to question the witness to further understand their validity. We weren't arguing if it's a good source of certainty, we arguing if it is outside of reason.
Yes an authority can be an expert, but being an authority does not implicitly mean you are an expert.
That's what I wanted to say. I was just trying to clarify that the "authority" in the "appeal to authority" doesn't mean just someone who has for example political power, some government ministry or something like that but it can be an "authority in the field" or "authority in the subject" which usually comes through their expertise.
I think you may be misinterpreting this. An appeal to authority in and of itself cannot be logical proof, but it can be part of the body of evidence that supports a logical proof. Logical proof is defined as a series of statements that show how a conclusion formed from a set of premises.
It just sounds like you're describing what I've said earlier. It's not logical proof in itself but can support it. Not sure where we disagree.
You are referring to this particular case often in these messages and I think I need to clarify that I was just talking in general terms, trying to note that the authority in question can have genuine expertise. It's just not logical proof in itself, which is why (some) consider it a fallacy if it used that way. Again, not speaking specifically of this case with Musk's heiling.
doesn't mean just someone who has for example political power, some government ministry or something like that but it can be an "authority in the field" or "authority in the subject" which usually comes through their expertise.
That's the thing though, It very well can be and often is just a government minister without experience. The Authority in appeal to authority doesn't dictate whether something is fallacious. Its whether or not utilizing their authority as evidence is logical or not.
The example on Wikipedia isn't a fallacy because he was an authority/expert. It was that using personal testimony isn't how you logically determine scientific fact.
just sounds like you're describing what I've said earlier. It's not logical proof in itself but can support it. Not sure where we disagree.
Because you can't logically support proof with a logical fallacy. Meaning that expert testimony that logically supports an assertion is not a logical fallacy.
That's the thing though, It very well can be and often is just a government minister without experience. The Authority in appeal to authority doesn't dictate whether something is fallacious. Its whether or not utilizing their authority as evidence is logical or not.
The example on Wikipedia isn't a fallacy because he was an authority/expert. It was that using personal testimony isn't how you logically determine scientific fact.
I'm not sure what's happening. You're repeating what I've been saying the whole time, again. What's going on?
I don't think you understand there's a difference between scientific claims and a normal claim. You don't need to provide empirical evidence to make a normal claim on a social media site that limits characters.
One can rationally assume that a person who has taught classes on Nazi could provide additional sources if asked. Since we can't ask him questions or haven't bothered to, at most you could claim hearsay. However, it's not outside reason to make that claim within the context that social media allows you to respond to rebuttals.