4 ms·

You've repeated this sentiment several times (and I believe you are right), but isn't it an appeal to authority?

maxerickson 10y ago
There's nothing wrong with citing topical experts. The "appeal to authority" fallacy occurs when someone is cited outside their area of expertise or is not an expert.
- mynameisvlad 10y ago
  Yep, this exactly. Most books dealing with logic and fallacies now list it as "Appeal to unqualified authority" or similar.
  - EGreg 10y ago
    I don't think the word "qualified" to qualify the word "authority" makes the appeal to auhority fallacy any truer. Most appeals to authority are actually to qualified authorities - the fallacy is neglecting to provide any reasoning behind the decision. In fact the authority may not have even intended their statement to indicate great certainty, or they may have been influenced by sociological phenomena. Qualified authorities in one century may be shown to be completely wrong. For example bloodletting, phlogiston, or even the age of the earth before radioactivity was discovered. Feynman talks about this... how the number stays close to the others until finally they jump to the right one. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      (delete)
      - mynameisvlad 10y ago
        I would say it's not that he's incorrect more that he's off-topic. The changing of truth doesn't really have anything at all to do with an appeal to authority fallacy because said fallacy is based on the thoughts of the time. We can't possibly know how scientists are going to think 150 years from now, so we can't appeal to their authority. So while, yes, he is accurate that our knowledge of the world around us and of Science changes over time, that has nothing to do with the fallacies we're discussing.
      - EGreg 10y ago
        Looks like you got downvoted also. I wonder if downvoters run in packs. I expect them to downvote this and not reply with any reason to either post. EDIT: I was right :)
        maxerickson 10y ago
        I downvoted this one just to push your buttons (it's a pune!). I didn't vote either way on the other comments.
        pvg 10y ago
        Nobody owes you a reason for disagreeing with you and simply downvoting. The site guidelines do ask you not to go on about downvoting, though.
        iwlbebnd 10y ago
        Because once you defunct the bad argument, and concisely prove that arguments from authorizity are illegitimate the next step is to silence the person with force. His comments are dead and they are entirely reasonable. Look up the history of the argument from authority, it is explicitly used by those in power to reject those not in power. It has nothing to do with whoever claims whether an expertise is legitimate or not. Edit: You're right, only one dead comment, the substantive one is just whited out to illegitibility because he dare has the teremity to challenge the crypto experts. Look, the people who signed the statement make up like 30% of this thread, it's completely rediculous, they are here to control dissent and flag and down vote those who challenge their authority.HN certainly isn't a place to have an open and free discussion when there's such an obvious gap in power and equality between users.
    - idlewords 10y ago
      Yeah, but for every Einstein there are 10^8 cranks.
idlewords 10y ago
Situations where you are right and the top experts in a field are wrong are rare, and should make you take pause. Moreover, these people are not arguing "because I said so", but giving a very long list of falsifiable reasons to back their claims.
wolf550e 10y ago
Appeal to authority is not nothing. If there is a complicated issue and a majority of credible authorities on the subject agree on some conclusion, I should accept it unless I have studied it enough (advanced degree in the right field + study up on all recent publications/results) to be sure I know everything they know and fully understand their reasoning. "use whatsapp" is the correct recommendation for everyone who is not ready to use opsec recommendations from grugq, same as "TLS everywhere" is a very good recommendation regardless of all the issues we know about TLS. Let's make pervasive passive collection impossible. Then we can work on stuff like endpoint security for everyone.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Note that the grugq signed the letter as well.

There's nothing wrong with citing topical experts. The "appeal to authority" fallacy occurs when someone is cited outside their area of expertise or is not an expert.

mynameisvlad 10y ago
Yep, this exactly. Most books dealing with logic and fallacies now list it as "Appeal to unqualified authority" or similar.
- EGreg 10y ago
  I don't think the word "qualified" to qualify the word "authority" makes the appeal to auhority fallacy any truer. Most appeals to authority are actually to qualified authorities - the fallacy is neglecting to provide any reasoning behind the decision. In fact the authority may not have even intended their statement to indicate great certainty, or they may have been influenced by sociological phenomena. Qualified authorities in one century may be shown to be completely wrong. For example bloodletting, phlogiston, or even the age of the earth before radioactivity was discovered. Feynman talks about this... how the number stays close to the others until finally they jump to the right one. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    (delete)
    - mynameisvlad 10y ago
      I would say it's not that he's incorrect more that he's off-topic. The changing of truth doesn't really have anything at all to do with an appeal to authority fallacy because said fallacy is based on the thoughts of the time. We can't possibly know how scientists are going to think 150 years from now, so we can't appeal to their authority. So while, yes, he is accurate that our knowledge of the world around us and of Science changes over time, that has nothing to do with the fallacies we're discussing.
    - EGreg 10y ago
      Looks like you got downvoted also. I wonder if downvoters run in packs. I expect them to downvote this and not reply with any reason to either post. EDIT: I was right :)
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        I downvoted this one just to push your buttons (it's a pune!). I didn't vote either way on the other comments.
      - pvg 10y ago
        Nobody owes you a reason for disagreeing with you and simply downvoting. The site guidelines do ask you not to go on about downvoting, though.
        iwlbebnd 10y ago
        Because once you defunct the bad argument, and concisely prove that arguments from authorizity are illegitimate the next step is to silence the person with force. His comments are dead and they are entirely reasonable. Look up the history of the argument from authority, it is explicitly used by those in power to reject those not in power. It has nothing to do with whoever claims whether an expertise is legitimate or not. Edit: You're right, only one dead comment, the substantive one is just whited out to illegitibility because he dare has the teremity to challenge the crypto experts. Look, the people who signed the statement make up like 30% of this thread, it's completely rediculous, they are here to control dissent and flag and down vote those who challenge their authority.HN certainly isn't a place to have an open and free discussion when there's such an obvious gap in power and equality between users.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    Yeah, but for every Einstein there are 10^8 cranks.

idlewords 10y ago

Situations where you are right and the top experts in a field are wrong are rare, and should make you take pause. Moreover, these people are not arguing "because I said so", but giving a very long list of falsifiable reasons to back their claims.

wolf550e 10y ago

Appeal to authority is not nothing. If there is a complicated issue and a majority of credible authorities on the subject agree on some conclusion, I should accept it unless I have studied it enough (advanced degree in the right field + study up on all recent publications/results) to be sure I know everything they know and fully understand their reasoning. "use whatsapp" is the correct recommendation for everyone who is not ready to use opsec recommendations from grugq, same as "TLS everywhere" is a very good recommendation regardless of all the issues we know about TLS. Let's make pervasive passive collection impossible. Then we can work on stuff like endpoint security for everyone.

tptacek 10y ago
Note that the grugq signed the letter as well.