> Appeal to authority is a fallacy Yes, but it isn't a fallacy which is occurring here. Provisionally accepting the reasoned opinion of a domain expert is a ra

> Appeal to authority is a fallacy Yes, but it isn't a fallacy which is occurring here. Provisionally accepting the reasoned opinion of a domain expert is a rational choice in situations where re-evaluating everything from first principles is not an option. This is not an appeal to authority unless their conclusion is taken to be true simply because they are an authority, without regard for how that conclusion was reached. There is naturally room for error; you're trusting in the expert's skill, experience, logic, motivation, and above all honesty to collaboratively assembly an argument larger than you could put together on your own, and each party must do their part. If the expert's reasoning is deceptive, flawed, or misinterpreted, then the argument falls apart—but you're not just taking their word as fact, you're trusting them to produce rational conclusions from the evidence in the same way that you would if you had their knowledge and experience (and unlimited time). Naturally, some experts are more trustworthy in any given domain than others. Anyone relying on Putin for conclusions on just about anything (even his own self-interest) is likely to be disappointed.