You'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 auth

You'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.