3 ms·

> Saying "98% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening" IS an argument from authority, but it's not an argument-from-authority fallacy, because they ar

> Saying "98% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening" IS an argument from authority, but it's not an argument-from-authority fallacy, because they are in fact authorities and we should listen to them. That is the claim that people make when they make an argument from authority. That doesn't make it not a logical fallacy. > It's only argument-from-authority if there isn't sufficient evidence that this authority is most likely correct on this count. Sometimes this works (the Earth orbits the Sun) and sometimes it doesn't (sanitizing hands/scalpels is actually a good idea between dissecting cadavers and doing c-sections).

pdpi 7y ago
> That is the claim that people make when they make an argument from authority. That doesn't make it not a logical fallacy. This is the point where branding things as fallacies breaks down, and is very much the point of the article. Calling “argument from authority” on somebody’s point is one of the weakest rebuttals you can provide, because you’re not really tackling the substance of the argument. In this case, “98% of scientists agree that AGW is happening” implicitly says “and I have all the arguments provided by those 98% on my side”. Presumably, if AGW isn’t happening, their arguments are wrong somehow, and you should be able to point out how. It’s not just appeal to authority, it’s saying “here’s a big body of research, tell me where it went wrong”. Ultimately, nobody is an expert on everything, and heuristic thinking has to take over at some point. Overwhelming expert consensus is a damn good heuristic to go by.
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > Ultimately, nobody is an expert on everything, and heuristic thinking has to take over at some point. Overwhelming expert consensus is a damn good heuristic to go by. Sometimes. I don't know enough about physics to even really understand the standard model. I still believe that it's pretty much true. However this approach is a bit limited. There simply aren't experts in macroeconomics that could convince me of anything on an appeal to authority basis in that same way. Ultimately, arguments are much cleaner and more convincing if you can simply and directly argue the point. For those arguments that are not so amenable, expert consensus may be a practical alternative, but at best it's a least bad choice, not something to be lauded.
taneq 7y ago
> Sometimes this works (the Earth orbits the Sun) and sometimes it doesn't (sanitizing hands/scalpels is actually a good idea between dissecting cadavers and doing c-sections). This is actually a perfect example of the difference between argument-from-authority and argument-from-authority-fallacy! Galileo didn't say "the Earth orbits the Sun because I say so and shut up." He said "the Earth orbits the Sun, here take a look." Not fallacy. The physicians who refused to wash their hands didn't say "washing hands has no measurable impact on mortality and here's our data to prove it", they said "gentleman doctors do not have dirty hands, and shut up." Fallacy.

pdpi 7y ago

> That is the claim that people make when they make an argument from authority. That doesn't make it not a logical fallacy. This is the point where branding things as fallacies breaks down, and is very much the point of the article. Calling “argument from authority” on somebody’s point is one of the weakest rebuttals you can provide, because you’re not really tackling the substance of the argument. In this case, “98% of scientists agree that AGW is happening” implicitly says “and I have all the arguments provided by those 98% on my side”. Presumably, if AGW isn’t happening, their arguments are wrong somehow, and you should be able to point out how. It’s not just appeal to authority, it’s saying “here’s a big body of research, tell me where it went wrong”. Ultimately, nobody is an expert on everything, and heuristic thinking has to take over at some point. Overwhelming expert consensus is a damn good heuristic to go by.

nordsieck 7y ago
> Ultimately, nobody is an expert on everything, and heuristic thinking has to take over at some point. Overwhelming expert consensus is a damn good heuristic to go by. Sometimes. I don't know enough about physics to even really understand the standard model. I still believe that it's pretty much true. However this approach is a bit limited. There simply aren't experts in macroeconomics that could convince me of anything on an appeal to authority basis in that same way. Ultimately, arguments are much cleaner and more convincing if you can simply and directly argue the point. For those arguments that are not so amenable, expert consensus may be a practical alternative, but at best it's a least bad choice, not something to be lauded.

taneq 7y ago

> Sometimes this works (the Earth orbits the Sun) and sometimes it doesn't (sanitizing hands/scalpels is actually a good idea between dissecting cadavers and doing c-sections). This is actually a perfect example of the difference between argument-from-authority and argument-from-authority-fallacy! Galileo didn't say "the Earth orbits the Sun because I say so and shut up." He said "the Earth orbits the Sun, here take a look." Not fallacy. The physicians who refused to wash their hands didn't say "washing hands has no measurable impact on mortality and here's our data to prove it", they said "gentleman doctors do not have dirty hands, and shut up." Fallacy.