Appeal to authority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regards to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable.
On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is plausible: it is likely true, we just don't know for sure, because authority alone is not a proof.
Contents |
[edit] Forms
There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert the authorities' claims are definitely true are fallacious.
The first form of the appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not a known expert on dental hygiene. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements and sponsorships.
The second form, citing a person who actually is an authority in the relevant field, carries more weight in that the authority is more likely to be correct. However the possibility of a mistake remains.
[edit] Appeal to authority as logical fallacy
A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:
- A makes claim B;
- there is something positive about A,
- therefore claim B is true.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Arguments that (fallaciously) rely on the objectionable aspects of the person for the truth of the conclusion are discussed under ad hominem.
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth. However, referencing authority may carry a high enough probability of truth that it would be correct to base decisions on it.
[edit] Examples of appeals to authority
- Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle. "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so".
- Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Einstein. "If Einstein said it was so, it is so".
- Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Jesus, Muhammad, or any other religious figure. "If (religious figure) said it was so, it is so".
- Referencing scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal. "Science (in the form of an article in a prestigious journal) says X, therefore X is so".
- Believing what one is told by one's teacher and/or parent. "My teacher said so, therefore it must be right."
- Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession, as in " This doctor recommends (brand-name) aspirin" or "Bankers recommend that people have six months' wages in a savings account".
- Something must be true because a war hero says it.
- Something must be true because an elected official says it.
- Something must be true because it is in the news.
- Something must be true because there is a scientific consensus.
- Something must be true because it is in a textbook.
- Something must be true because it is in an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia.
- Something must be true because it is in a sacred text.
[edit] Discussion
Among the most respected of ancient Greek philosophers was Pythagoras, whose disciples were known for their custom of justifying their assertions by reference to the bald assertions of their master: αὐτὸς ἐφέ (autos ephe), or "he himself hath said it." This well-known practice was carried on by later philosophers and ecclesiastics. Because of the influence of scholasticism, the expression is commonly known in its Latin translation, ipse dixit.
In the Middle Ages, roughly from the 12th century to the 15th century, the philosophy of Aristotle became firmly established dogma, and using the beliefs of Aristotle was an important part of many debates. Aristotle's thought became so central to the philosophy of the late Middle Ages that he became known in Latin as Ille Philosophus, "the philosopher," and quotations from Aristotle became known as ipse dixits ("He, himself, has spoken."). In this case, Aristotle is an example of someone who is an authority in philosophy, but philosophy is an area where direct evidence is less readily available, and therefore, Aristotle's ideas carry weight, but are not the final word. On the other hand, arguing that all astronomers believe that the planet Neptune exists - and therefore, that serves as evidence of the planet's existence - is a more compelling argument because astronomers are knowledgeable in the relevant field and are in a position to readily prove or disprove the existence of the planet (direct experience). However, it is still better to argue from evidence than from what astronomers believe.
Authoritarian ethics is the meta-ethical theory by which one attains ethical knowledge from an authority, for example from a God or from the law (see Divine command theory). The bandwagon fallacy can be viewed as a special case of an appeal to authority, where the authority is public opinion.
A corollary to this is the infamous 'Because I said so' argument much stated by parents and loathed by children. It is a logical fallacy of this kind, in the fact that the parent is an authority figure and, therefore, should have the proper knowledge to make their statements true. However, like most fallacies of this kind, the validity of their statements is only in the form of their individual beliefs, and when pressed for a logical explanation for the reasoning behind their statement, are unable to do so in a satisfactory manner. As such, the basic overall fallacy here is that, as they are the authority figures over a child, the child is supposed to believe that only their parents' statement is explanation enough for it to be so.
[edit] Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority
Any argument should ideally be based solely on direct evidence and the argument itself, not on the authority of the messenger drawing the conclusion from the evidence. However, it is rarely possible in common discourse to provide all the direct evidence, so an "appeal to authority" is often used as a shortcut:
- The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity. Citation to statements made by a sports or entertainment figure about foreign policy would be an example of an improper appeal to authority.
- The judgment must be within the authority's field of competence. Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize for chemistry, then later made claims that massive quantities of vitamin C would prevent cancer in humans. This claim was in the field of medicine and thus outside his field of competence.
- The authority must be interpreted correctly. This is particularly a problem in religion; where the Koran, Bible, Torah, etc., have been interpreted with varying and sometimes contradictory results.
- Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle.
- The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious beliefs). For this reason, appealing to one's own authority is never legitimate. The trial of Galileo (for promoting his belief in a heliocentric solar system and not the geocentric model taught by the Church) is one famous example. The court did not arrive at its guilty verdict by applying the scientific method of hypothesis and empirical observation. Instead Galileo was found guilty on no other basis than the religious authority of the Roman Catholic Church itself, which was at the basis of the prevalent scientific theory of the time.
- The judgment must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample). Lawyers sometimes find a non-representative "expert" to offer a theory which is not generally accepted (such as a so-called Twinkie defense) in hopes of winning their case.
- A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities. If scientific testing of the claim is not possible, then the majority of expert opinions is sometimes used to develop a consensus.
[edit] Taxonomy
The appeal to authority is a genetic fallacy.
[edit] Sub-categories
Appeal to Celebrity. A celebrity's opinion is more valid than the opinion of anyone else, by virtue of being a celebrity.
Last Man Standing Fallacy - The arguments of the victor in an election or war are axiomatically validated by the victory. It is also known as the Trial by Combat Fallacy, Winner Takes All Fallacy.
Martyr Fallacy - The loser is axiomatically correct by virtue of failure (antithesis of Last Man Standing Fallacy), also known as the Underdog Fallacy
Not universal taxonomy [nomenclature derived from "Lectures on Logic" Dioc.North [Paul Priest, 1991]
