3 ms·

That's not an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is "P is a statement in the topic T. A is an expert in T. A says P is true. Therefore P is true." If I

That's not an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is "P is a statement in the topic T. A is an expert in T. A says P is true. Therefore P is true." If I draw a parallel between two topics and proceed to explain one of them in order to argue something about the other one, that's not an appeal to authority. It could be that the reader fails to understand the explanation and instead treats the writer as a trustworthy authority. That would not make the argument an appeal to authority or even fallacious. It could be that the analogy is poorly justified, which would make the argument incomplete, or it could even be that the writer failed to understand some subtle aspect of the second topic that makes the analogy inappropriate. Neither of these would be appeals to authority.

VogonPoetry 4y ago
In this case the author (A) is setting themselves up as an authority in (T). The statement (P) in this article has not been revealed, but because (and I suspected separated) is in the followup (which I have now read). The followup does refer back to the "now you know about poles" -- the appeal to authority.
- hmry 4y ago
  Setting yourself up as an authority isn't a fallacy. It's a rhetorical device. (Though I am not sure what makes you say that anyway. The article didn't particularly strike me as the author setting themselves up as an authority, beyond what is inherent in writing an article that explains something.) If they made the argument "I am an expert in control theory, therefore what I think about Canadian politics is correct", that would be an appeal to one's own authority. But I didn't see anything like that in the article.
- fluoridation 4y ago
  >The followup does refer back to the "now you know about poles" -- the appeal to authority. How is that an appeal to authority?
  - VogonPoetry 4y ago
    In the classic social media sense. You saw my post on X, now believe what I say on Y.
    - fluoridation 4y ago
      Would you mind pointing out in the second post the sentence where that line of reasoning is implied?
      - VogonPoetry 4y ago
        These: "Now that you know what right-half-plane zeros are, in this article I'm going to begin a deep-dive into a control-systems-based analysis of a certain feedback system that is drawing particular public attention today: inflation." And all of the statements made in the walkback "a bit of a preamble" -- basically issuing caveats or disclaiming all of what was said before. A classic "I got you here", but I'm going to disclaim all of that, you are a fool to read anything that follows.
        fluoridation 4y ago
        I read that as "now that you know some of the concepts and terminology used in systems theory, I can use them to make an argument in economics, and you can use that knowledge to judge for yourself whether the argument is valid or not". It's literally the opposite of a appeal to authority. As I see it, the only way it could be dishonest would be if the systems theory explanation is incorrect or purposely leaves inconvenient things out (which it might). It would be an (incompetent) appeal to authority if it said "now that you've seen that I know my stuff when it comes to systems theory, you know that this thing I say about economics is true".
        dahart 4y ago
        > As I see it, the only way it could be dishonest would be if the systems theory explanation is incorrect or purposely leaves inconvenient things out (which it might). That should be the default assumption, no? Today’s Control Theory has never been shown to be predictive of the economy or politics, wouldn’t you agree? The article framed the discussion as if control theory is useful, purposely implied it’s utility, and did not state it’s known lack of scientific validity, which is indeed leaving some very inconvenient facts out, right? Saying that they left it open with a ‘judge for yourself’ is not a great counter to the critique of the argument style. There is an intentional framing here that fails to list the alternatives, tries to establish itself as ‘correct’ via implication, and pivots to a separate topic that is unproven to be relevant. Pretending to be unbiased while presenting a one-sided set of “information” is a pretty common type of appeal to authority.
- starkd 4y ago
  Actually, it seems more an effort to establish credibility. "I have a degree in such and such" or "I have worked in this field for over 20 years". That seems to be much different than appeal to authority.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    It seems to only be an appeal to authority when it's a person or a position that one disagrees with. Otherwise it's "experience" or "consensus".
- Natsu 4y ago
  What makes appeal to authority fallacious is that one's supposed expertise has no bearing on the truth of the things one says. An appeal to authority is when someone argues something like, "I'm an expert, I think X and so should you" basing their opinion on X on their supposed expertise and not actual logic. When someone gives reasons, their argument rests on those reasons, not on their supposed authority as an expert on the topic.

VogonPoetry 4y ago

In this case the author (A) is setting themselves up as an authority in (T). The statement (P) in this article has not been revealed, but because (and I suspected separated) is in the followup (which I have now read). The followup does refer back to the "now you know about poles" -- the appeal to authority.

hmry 4y ago
Setting yourself up as an authority isn't a fallacy. It's a rhetorical device. (Though I am not sure what makes you say that anyway. The article didn't particularly strike me as the author setting themselves up as an authority, beyond what is inherent in writing an article that explains something.) If they made the argument "I am an expert in control theory, therefore what I think about Canadian politics is correct", that would be an appeal to one's own authority. But I didn't see anything like that in the article.
fluoridation 4y ago
>The followup does refer back to the "now you know about poles" -- the appeal to authority. How is that an appeal to authority?
- VogonPoetry 4y ago
  In the classic social media sense. You saw my post on X, now believe what I say on Y.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    Would you mind pointing out in the second post the sentence where that line of reasoning is implied?
    - VogonPoetry 4y ago
      These: "Now that you know what right-half-plane zeros are, in this article I'm going to begin a deep-dive into a control-systems-based analysis of a certain feedback system that is drawing particular public attention today: inflation." And all of the statements made in the walkback "a bit of a preamble" -- basically issuing caveats or disclaiming all of what was said before. A classic "I got you here", but I'm going to disclaim all of that, you are a fool to read anything that follows.
      - fluoridation 4y ago
        I read that as "now that you know some of the concepts and terminology used in systems theory, I can use them to make an argument in economics, and you can use that knowledge to judge for yourself whether the argument is valid or not". It's literally the opposite of a appeal to authority. As I see it, the only way it could be dishonest would be if the systems theory explanation is incorrect or purposely leaves inconvenient things out (which it might). It would be an (incompetent) appeal to authority if it said "now that you've seen that I know my stuff when it comes to systems theory, you know that this thing I say about economics is true".
        dahart 4y ago
        > As I see it, the only way it could be dishonest would be if the systems theory explanation is incorrect or purposely leaves inconvenient things out (which it might). That should be the default assumption, no? Today’s Control Theory has never been shown to be predictive of the economy or politics, wouldn’t you agree? The article framed the discussion as if control theory is useful, purposely implied it’s utility, and did not state it’s known lack of scientific validity, which is indeed leaving some very inconvenient facts out, right? Saying that they left it open with a ‘judge for yourself’ is not a great counter to the critique of the argument style. There is an intentional framing here that fails to list the alternatives, tries to establish itself as ‘correct’ via implication, and pivots to a separate topic that is unproven to be relevant. Pretending to be unbiased while presenting a one-sided set of “information” is a pretty common type of appeal to authority.
starkd 4y ago
Actually, it seems more an effort to establish credibility. "I have a degree in such and such" or "I have worked in this field for over 20 years". That seems to be much different than appeal to authority.
- throw10920 4y ago
  It seems to only be an appeal to authority when it's a person or a position that one disagrees with. Otherwise it's "experience" or "consensus".
Natsu 4y ago
What makes appeal to authority fallacious is that one's supposed expertise has no bearing on the truth of the things one says. An appeal to authority is when someone argues something like, "I'm an expert, I think X and so should you" basing their opinion on X on their supposed expertise and not actual logic. When someone gives reasons, their argument rests on those reasons, not on their supposed authority as an expert on the topic.