3 ms·
I think this fallacy is the most widely misunderstood fallacy of all. In an argument between experts, appeal-to-authority is indeed a fallacy. If both people ar
by whack 7y ago
I think this fallacy is the most widely misunderstood fallacy of all. In an argument between experts, appeal-to-authority is indeed a fallacy. If both people are indeed experts, they should be able to judge something purely on its merits. This is similar to the scientific method where debates are settled by logic and evidence, not seniority.
But if either party in the debate isn't an expert, then appealing to authority is the rational thing to do. If you yourself aren't an expert, then you lack the expertise needed to evaluate any arguments purely based on merit. You'd be far better off relying on expert advice, even if the person you're debating with has suggested something different and is more knowledge than you.
It takes a lot of objectivity and humility to know which fields you are and aren't an expert in. Overestimating your skills may feel good, but will only slow your progress and lead to bad decisions. The vast majority of the time, you're better off following expert advice.
- coldtea 7y ago>But if either party in the debate isn't an expert, then appealing to authority is the rational thing to do. It might be the "rational thing to do" but it's not a logical argument -- which is what makes it a fallacy. Fallacies can often be the logical thing to do. E.g. an "Ad Hominem Fallacy" might save your ass when the other person puts forward a perfectly logical argument, but to serve their own selfish reasons to your detriment. An "Appeal to hypocrisy" can serve to highlight when the person you debate with wants you to stop doing something (because eg. they say its bad) but keeps for themselves the benefits of keeping doing to (and thus gets the upper hand on you). And so on. Still, like those things "Appeal to authority" is not a logical proof based on the content under discussion (and axioms, logical steps etc), but a "because X says so" on the status of person X (eg. their expertise). That's what makes it a fallacy. Whether what that person says is true or not, or even whether it's more likely true than not, is irrelevant. In either case, it's not a logical proof (in the formal sense) nor a definite proof (the person with the expertise could for example be lying to further their interests, or mislead for some other reason).
- sidlls 7y agoThe word "fallacy" as used in the OP seems to me to be a shorthand for "belief or opinion not backed by solid observational evidence and/or reasoning". It doesn't seem to apply to the case of constructing an argument in the logical or philosophical sense.
- whack 7y agoWe're arguing over semantics here. Most people interpret a "fallacy" as something one should refrain from. Ie, "appeal-to-authority is a fallacy, therefore we should refrain from it during the course of any discussion". I'm making the point that often times, appealing to authority is most likely to produce the correct answer.
- coldtea 7y ago>I'm making the point that often times, appealing to authority is most likely to produce the correct answer. That's true for most so-called fallacies. Instead they are evolutionary shortcuts to getting the correct answer (at least at evolutionary kind of situations).
- whack 7y agoHow does committing the strawman fallacy help in producing the correct answer?
- BubRoss 7y agoThis is not true. There is a difference between logical fallacies and judgement based on probability. Circular reasoning, strawman arguments and actual appeals to authority are not the same as taking into account the likelyhood than an expert is correct.