4 ms·

> appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is indeed an expert. Sure it is. The point of the fallacy is that an argument should stand on its ow

> appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is indeed an expert. Sure it is. The point of the fallacy is that an argument should stand on its own merit, and has nothing to do with the person making it. Guess what - experts can be wrong too (e.g. hand washing).

enobrev 6y ago
What about hand-washing?
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > What about hand-washing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz...
  - enobrev 6y ago
    Thank you. I was worried it was going to be like the salmonella thing where it turned out washing a chicken* is terrible advice because it spreads it everywhere and so it turns out that every time I wash my hands after handling deliveries, I'm now covering my kitchen with Covid sauce. I'm very happy that's not the case. * I've never washed a chicken, but I've definitely seen and heard the advice before.
Kinrany 6y ago
An expert can be wrong, but a layperson is more likely to be wrong. "Experts are wrong" is sometimes common knowledge, but "I know better than experts" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Appealing to an expert should not be an instant win, but an argument can be valid and useful without being sufficient to end the discussion.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
afiori 6y ago
In practice it is about phrasing "expert said that, so it must be true" is a fallacy, reaching a consensus via a relevant authority is not.
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > In practice it is about phrasing "expert said that, so it must be true" is a fallacy, reaching a consensus via a relevant authority is not. Perhaps you could explain the difference?
  - afiori 6y ago
    In one case I am declaring that something needs to be true, in the other I am declaring that I believe something as true. The authority fallacy is that a certain position cannot be challenged as some expert are infallible. Similarly to how you believe 2 + 2 = 4 you also believe Aristotle was the arbiter of truth. As an argument it exposes no attack surface because you do not admit criticisms of the position. It is not a fallacy if you are simply making an assumption of a fact (eg that rats are born out of rotting plants) that can be separately proven or disproven. Sort of how a dictionary is used, it is not that the dictionary must be true we understand that it is possible for it to be wrong, it is just that we agree not to contest it in most cases for ease of conversation.
    - nordsieck 6y ago
      > In one case I am declaring that something needs to be true, in the other I am declaring that I believe something as true. Those are not as different as you seem to believe. > Sort of how a dictionary is used, it is not that the dictionary must be true we understand that it is possible for it to be wrong, it is just that we agree not to contest it in most cases for ease of conversation. That is not how dictionaries are used. Dictionaries document how language is used in the recent past by a sufficiently large number of people. They are a trailing indicator of how language is used. If you description was actually accurate, there would be no new slang (e.g. yeet) and words would not change their usage (e.g. "they" is now also a gender neutral singular).

enobrev 6y ago

What about hand-washing?

nordsieck 6y ago
> What about hand-washing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Ignaz...
- enobrev 6y ago
  Thank you. I was worried it was going to be like the salmonella thing where it turned out washing a chicken* is terrible advice because it spreads it everywhere and so it turns out that every time I wash my hands after handling deliveries, I'm now covering my kitchen with Covid sauce. I'm very happy that's not the case. * I've never washed a chicken, but I've definitely seen and heard the advice before.

Kinrany 6y ago

An expert can be wrong, but a layperson is more likely to be wrong. "Experts are wrong" is sometimes common knowledge, but "I know better than experts" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Appealing to an expert should not be an instant win, but an argument can be valid and useful without being sufficient to end the discussion.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

afiori 6y ago

In practice it is about phrasing "expert said that, so it must be true" is a fallacy, reaching a consensus via a relevant authority is not.

nordsieck 6y ago
> In practice it is about phrasing "expert said that, so it must be true" is a fallacy, reaching a consensus via a relevant authority is not. Perhaps you could explain the difference?
- afiori 6y ago
  In one case I am declaring that something needs to be true, in the other I am declaring that I believe something as true. The authority fallacy is that a certain position cannot be challenged as some expert are infallible. Similarly to how you believe 2 + 2 = 4 you also believe Aristotle was the arbiter of truth. As an argument it exposes no attack surface because you do not admit criticisms of the position. It is not a fallacy if you are simply making an assumption of a fact (eg that rats are born out of rotting plants) that can be separately proven or disproven. Sort of how a dictionary is used, it is not that the dictionary must be true we understand that it is possible for it to be wrong, it is just that we agree not to contest it in most cases for ease of conversation.
  - nordsieck 6y ago
    > In one case I am declaring that something needs to be true, in the other I am declaring that I believe something as true. Those are not as different as you seem to believe. > Sort of how a dictionary is used, it is not that the dictionary must be true we understand that it is possible for it to be wrong, it is just that we agree not to contest it in most cases for ease of conversation. That is not how dictionaries are used. Dictionaries document how language is used in the recent past by a sufficiently large number of people. They are a trailing indicator of how language is used. If you description was actually accurate, there would be no new slang (e.g. yeet) and words would not change their usage (e.g. "they" is now also a gender neutral singular).