3 ms·

A large problem with using "cheat sheet" lists of fallacies is that they lack the nuance of the actual fallacies they cite. An argument from authority is fallac

A large problem with using "cheat sheet" lists of fallacies is that they lack the nuance of the actual fallacies they cite. An argument from authority is fallacious if, and only if, the authority cited is not an unbiased expert in the matter or there is no expert consensus on the matter. Trusting your doctor when you are sick is not an instance of fallacious reasoning. While I'm here, another problem with things like this is the tendency for people to use them as an argument-refuter-o-matic. Indicating an argument is fallacious is not a rebuttal of the argument: it's merely an indicator that the argument is incomplete. Using fallacies to rebut an argument is, somewhat ironically, itself a fallacy.

Clotho 13y ago
"Trusting your doctor when you are sick is not an instance of fallacious reasoning." Nor is it an argument. It's an action based on a personal risk assessment. If you said "The cancer studies are trash because my doctor says they are." Then you would be making a fallacious argument. Authority is only rational as a screening tool in the evaluation of large amounts of after information. It most definitely is not a proof.
- itafroma 13y ago
  > Nor is it an argument. It's an action based on a personal risk assessment. Concluding that something is the best course of action because an expert authority is, in fact, an example of the results of an inductive argument. P1: I am sick. P2: I have no knowledge of how to treat my sickness. P3: Knowing how to treat my sickness requires expert-level knowledge. P4: My doctor says I should take X to treat my sickness. P5: If my doctor is an unbiased expert whose opinion is representative of the medical community on my sickness, then what my doctor is prescribing is likely correct. P6: I have no reason to believe my doctor is not an unbiased expert whose opinion is representative of the medical community on my sickness. ------------------------------ C: If I follow my doctor's prescription, my sickness will most likely be treated correctly. This is a valid argument, and not an appeal to or argument from authority. The conclusion is justified based on the premises provided. One could, of course, discount any of the premises provided: for example, I could later find out that my doctor is a hack. If I do not then revise my conclusion or introduce new evidence to, then the conclusion would no longer be justified and the argument would become invalid. > If you said "The cancer studies are trash because my doctor says they are." Then you would be making a fallacious argument. If you make the claim that certain cancer studies are trash because your doctor says they are despite expert consensus indicating that they are, in fact, conclusive, then yes, your argument would be fallacious. If, on the other hand, you make the claim that certain cancer studies are trash because your doctor says they are and it so happens that your doctor's position is representative of the oncology community as a whole, your argument would not be fallacious (or, rather, it would not be fallacious merely on the basis of an argument from authority). > It most definitely is not a proof. Informal fallacies, like the argument from authority, are indications of faults in an argument: they are not proof-enders, nor do they apply to proofs. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by saying an inductive argument is not a proof. No one could, or should, dispute that.
coldtea 13y ago
>An argument from authority is fallacious if, and only if, the authority cited is not an unbiased expert in the matter or there is no expert consensus on the matter. I'm not sure the "appeal to authority" is about that though. If it was meant as you describe it, it could just be called "appeal to a biased authority" or "appeal to a non-authority" and everyone would agree it is fallacious to do so. Take your example: "Trusting your doctor when you are sick is not an instance of fallacious reasoning". According to the "fallacy" people, this IS actually a case of fallacious reasoning. It amounts to saying: "His opinion on this medical matter is correct because he is a doctor" whereas (they maintain), his opinion could just as well be wrong, and you can't tell without examining the individual specific case thoroughly, through actual examination, not quoting past expertise.
- itafroma 13y ago
  According to the "fallacy" people? What? There is no fallacy standards body that arbitrates normative definitions of fallacies. Fallacies are what they are because they describe faults in reasoning: they describe the terms under which a conclusion does not follow from the premises given. The argument from authority, argumentum ad auctoritatem, is a well-known and well-understood fallacy. Take the GGP's scenario: I am sick, and there is a doctor who has prescribed treatment or a cure. By virtue of being a doctor, it's implied that they are a medical expert. Going to a doctor and trusting him is not the same as going to Joe the Plumber and asking him for medical advice. So if I, being a layman, believe that the doctor is actually a doctor (and thus, an expert) and I have no contrary knowledge to refute the doctor's claim, there is nothing that prevents me from trusting his prescription provided I have no reason to believe he is biased or his prescription goes against the consensus of the greater medical community on my sickness. That last part is key, and how trusting a doctor when you are sick is not an appeal to authority. If the doctor in question is an expert in the field and expert consensus agrees on a treatment or cure, I can get a second, or third, or fourth opinion from other expert doctors and get the same answer. So by trusting a doctor, I'm not willy-nilly putting faith in someone else. Rather, I'm using inductive reasoning to make a reasonably valid conclusion. One could refute any of the premises—that the doctor isn't really an expert, or that there really isn't consensus, or that the doctor isn't really impartial—and that's fine, but if I have every reason to believe that the doctor is, in fact, an unbiased expert and representative of consensus (or, conversely, no reason to believe that he isn't any of those things), I am justified in believing what he says.

Clotho 13y ago

"Trusting your doctor when you are sick is not an instance of fallacious reasoning." Nor is it an argument. It's an action based on a personal risk assessment. If you said "The cancer studies are trash because my doctor says they are." Then you would be making a fallacious argument. Authority is only rational as a screening tool in the evaluation of large amounts of after information. It most definitely is not a proof.

itafroma 13y ago
> Nor is it an argument. It's an action based on a personal risk assessment. Concluding that something is the best course of action because an expert authority is, in fact, an example of the results of an inductive argument. P1: I am sick. P2: I have no knowledge of how to treat my sickness. P3: Knowing how to treat my sickness requires expert-level knowledge. P4: My doctor says I should take X to treat my sickness. P5: If my doctor is an unbiased expert whose opinion is representative of the medical community on my sickness, then what my doctor is prescribing is likely correct. P6: I have no reason to believe my doctor is not an unbiased expert whose opinion is representative of the medical community on my sickness. ------------------------------ C: If I follow my doctor's prescription, my sickness will most likely be treated correctly. This is a valid argument, and not an appeal to or argument from authority. The conclusion is justified based on the premises provided. One could, of course, discount any of the premises provided: for example, I could later find out that my doctor is a hack. If I do not then revise my conclusion or introduce new evidence to, then the conclusion would no longer be justified and the argument would become invalid. > If you said "The cancer studies are trash because my doctor says they are." Then you would be making a fallacious argument. If you make the claim that certain cancer studies are trash because your doctor says they are despite expert consensus indicating that they are, in fact, conclusive, then yes, your argument would be fallacious. If, on the other hand, you make the claim that certain cancer studies are trash because your doctor says they are and it so happens that your doctor's position is representative of the oncology community as a whole, your argument would not be fallacious (or, rather, it would not be fallacious merely on the basis of an argument from authority). > It most definitely is not a proof. Informal fallacies, like the argument from authority, are indications of faults in an argument: they are not proof-enders, nor do they apply to proofs. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by saying an inductive argument is not a proof. No one could, or should, dispute that.

coldtea 13y ago

>An argument from authority is fallacious if, and only if, the authority cited is not an unbiased expert in the matter or there is no expert consensus on the matter. I'm not sure the "appeal to authority" is about that though. If it was meant as you describe it, it could just be called "appeal to a biased authority" or "appeal to a non-authority" and everyone would agree it is fallacious to do so. Take your example: "Trusting your doctor when you are sick is not an instance of fallacious reasoning". According to the "fallacy" people, this IS actually a case of fallacious reasoning. It amounts to saying: "His opinion on this medical matter is correct because he is a doctor" whereas (they maintain), his opinion could just as well be wrong, and you can't tell without examining the individual specific case thoroughly, through actual examination, not quoting past expertise.

itafroma 13y ago
According to the "fallacy" people? What? There is no fallacy standards body that arbitrates normative definitions of fallacies. Fallacies are what they are because they describe faults in reasoning: they describe the terms under which a conclusion does not follow from the premises given. The argument from authority, argumentum ad auctoritatem, is a well-known and well-understood fallacy. Take the GGP's scenario: I am sick, and there is a doctor who has prescribed treatment or a cure. By virtue of being a doctor, it's implied that they are a medical expert. Going to a doctor and trusting him is not the same as going to Joe the Plumber and asking him for medical advice. So if I, being a layman, believe that the doctor is actually a doctor (and thus, an expert) and I have no contrary knowledge to refute the doctor's claim, there is nothing that prevents me from trusting his prescription provided I have no reason to believe he is biased or his prescription goes against the consensus of the greater medical community on my sickness. That last part is key, and how trusting a doctor when you are sick is not an appeal to authority. If the doctor in question is an expert in the field and expert consensus agrees on a treatment or cure, I can get a second, or third, or fourth opinion from other expert doctors and get the same answer. So by trusting a doctor, I'm not willy-nilly putting faith in someone else. Rather, I'm using inductive reasoning to make a reasonably valid conclusion. One could refute any of the premises—that the doctor isn't really an expert, or that there really isn't consensus, or that the doctor isn't really impartial—and that's fine, but if I have every reason to believe that the doctor is, in fact, an unbiased expert and representative of consensus (or, conversely, no reason to believe that he isn't any of those things), I am justified in believing what he says.