3 ms·
That’s not what it means at all. Of course relying on false authorities is bad. Like all “fallacies” it’s not that they are useless, it’s just that you have to
by akvadrako 7y ago
That’s not what it means at all. Of course relying on false authorities is bad.
Like all “fallacies” it’s not that they are useless, it’s just that you have to be aware of the traps. Even the best experts in an area often disagree, so you can’t logically deduce that expert says X means X is true.
- Vinnl 7y agoYou're right that the actual fallacy is using an appeal to authority as proof for a statement - that is wrong. However, it's perfectly fine to defer to an authority as a working hypothesis when you're not proving something, though - unless that authority does not have relevant expertise. I think my point is probably better worded by https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority > nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. But that does not dismiss that you're entirely right in that > it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.