3 ms·

This isn't an appeal to authority though. That would be saying, "I'm right because I'm the expert." This is saying, "I don't trust you because you're not an exp

This isn't an appeal to authority though. That would be saying, "I'm right because I'm the expert." This is saying, "I don't trust you because you're not an expert." That's not a logical fallacy. Even experts in adjacent or overlapping fields are suspect. I'm a flight instructor. I teach in airplanes. Would you believe what I have to say about helicopters? You shouldn't. I don't know jack about them.

aww_dang 6y ago
If you told me I had low tire pressure I wouldn't ask if you're a mechanic. I would look at the tire myself. If I was unable to use a pressure gauge due to a lack of my own expertise, I still wouldn't be in a position to question your observation about the tire based upon your credentials alone. The best counter argument I could mount would be, "It looks full to me" or "I checked the pressure this morning". Dismissing your observation because you are a flight instructor, not a mechanic is exactly what an appeal to authority is.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  He’s either correct about your tire pressure or he’s not. You’re right about that part. That’s as far as the purely logical bit can go—then you get to economics: Should you spend the time and energy to give his claim credence? Your example is poor because tire pressure is an expertise the average person you’re likely to come into contact with likely possesses. This is not so of, say, the epidemiological issue in question. If you picked up a member of an Amazonian tribe who had never seen a car before, are you going to worry about the tire if he claims the tire pressure is low? Well, sure, it’s easy enough to check. But what if it was $500 to check? No. I don’t think you would.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    Yes, I attempted to cover that eventuality in my example. Let's say I am not qualified to examine the tire myself and someone who's ability I also doubted made an observation. Here's what I wouldn't do: prejudicially dismiss the tribesman's opinion, citing his lack of authority on the topic. Even if we accept the premises of an appeal to authority, it would follow that one would have to also be an authority on the topic before he could determine the authoritativeness of another speaker. How can you evaluate the authority of a speaker, if you yourself are not an 'authority' on the topic? Even if you are an authority, does this status render you infallible? No, I'm afraid the entire premise is ridiculous.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      > Here's what I wouldn't do: prejudicially dismiss the tribesman's opinion, citing his lack of authority on the topic. Even if you wouldn't in this particular case, you can't possibly function in the world if you eschew questions of trust completely. You'd basically have to prove everything yourself. > Even if we accept the premises of an appeal to authority... An appeal to authority is claiming something is true because an authority said it. The inverse of that would be that something is untrue because no authority said it. No one is claiming that to be the case and even if they were, that wouldn't make it an appeal to authority. In any case, this is a question of credibility (i.e., trust). > ...it would follow that one would have to also be an authority on the topic before he could determine the authoritativeness of another speaker. This doesn't follow at all. I am not an expert on tires, but I can understand that someone who has never even seen a tire is also not an expert on tires. > Even if you are an authority, does this status render you infallible? No. Of course not. But it does make you a more credible source of information in your field of expertise.
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        There's a difference between dismissing someone's objection solely for lack of credentials (an appeal to authority) and valuing the opinion of an expert. The former is absolute, the latter allows for other factors of consideration.

aww_dang 6y ago

If you told me I had low tire pressure I wouldn't ask if you're a mechanic. I would look at the tire myself. If I was unable to use a pressure gauge due to a lack of my own expertise, I still wouldn't be in a position to question your observation about the tire based upon your credentials alone. The best counter argument I could mount would be, "It looks full to me" or "I checked the pressure this morning". Dismissing your observation because you are a flight instructor, not a mechanic is exactly what an appeal to authority is.

cgriswald 6y ago
He’s either correct about your tire pressure or he’s not. You’re right about that part. That’s as far as the purely logical bit can go—then you get to economics: Should you spend the time and energy to give his claim credence? Your example is poor because tire pressure is an expertise the average person you’re likely to come into contact with likely possesses. This is not so of, say, the epidemiological issue in question. If you picked up a member of an Amazonian tribe who had never seen a car before, are you going to worry about the tire if he claims the tire pressure is low? Well, sure, it’s easy enough to check. But what if it was $500 to check? No. I don’t think you would.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Yes, I attempted to cover that eventuality in my example. Let's say I am not qualified to examine the tire myself and someone who's ability I also doubted made an observation. Here's what I wouldn't do: prejudicially dismiss the tribesman's opinion, citing his lack of authority on the topic. Even if we accept the premises of an appeal to authority, it would follow that one would have to also be an authority on the topic before he could determine the authoritativeness of another speaker. How can you evaluate the authority of a speaker, if you yourself are not an 'authority' on the topic? Even if you are an authority, does this status render you infallible? No, I'm afraid the entire premise is ridiculous.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    > Here's what I wouldn't do: prejudicially dismiss the tribesman's opinion, citing his lack of authority on the topic. Even if you wouldn't in this particular case, you can't possibly function in the world if you eschew questions of trust completely. You'd basically have to prove everything yourself. > Even if we accept the premises of an appeal to authority... An appeal to authority is claiming something is true because an authority said it. The inverse of that would be that something is untrue because no authority said it. No one is claiming that to be the case and even if they were, that wouldn't make it an appeal to authority. In any case, this is a question of credibility (i.e., trust). > ...it would follow that one would have to also be an authority on the topic before he could determine the authoritativeness of another speaker. This doesn't follow at all. I am not an expert on tires, but I can understand that someone who has never even seen a tire is also not an expert on tires. > Even if you are an authority, does this status render you infallible? No. Of course not. But it does make you a more credible source of information in your field of expertise.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      There's a difference between dismissing someone's objection solely for lack of credentials (an appeal to authority) and valuing the opinion of an expert. The former is absolute, the latter allows for other factors of consideration.