4 ms·
An appeal to authority is never a valid argument, as it is a logical fallacy (i.e. by definition invalid). Sure, authority can be a useful heuristic for non-au
by eivarv 11y ago
An appeal to authority is never a valid argument, as it is a logical fallacy (i.e. by definition invalid).
Sure, authority can be a useful heuristic for non-authorities, but is useless in argumentative reasoning, e.g. "X, who is an authority says Y, and so [therefore] Y is true".
- TeMPOraL 11y agoFortunately, real world does not run on boolean logic. "X, who is an authority on the topic says Y" does not prove Y is true, but provides evidence in favour of Y being true.
- eivarv 11y agoSure, I agree to some extent. In the hypothetical case it may be reasonable to assume that X knows what they are talking about; one can reasonably assume that they are better informed regarding the subject than a layperson. But the reason for it being a fallacy is that this sort of argument doesn't provide evidence of any kind. Rather, it makes the assumption that it must be true, because the authority says so.
- innguest 11y ago> it makes the assumption that it must be true, because the authority says so. You got it. You should not have been downvoted above.
- rodgerd 11y ago> An appeal to authority is never a valid argument, as it is a logical fallacy (i.e. by definition invalid). Jenny McCarthy and Dave Grohl's opinions on the effectiveness of vaccination are clearly as valid as my doctor's. Weighting my doctor's views above those is clearly a fallacy because debating rules.
- eivarv 11y agoI appreciate your sarcastic attempt to make a point via reductio ad absurdum, but as you can see the only thing I'm saying is that arguments that makes the assumption that whatever an authority figure says regarding a matter must be true (argument from authority) are never valid. I'm not saying that expert opinions don't have merit, I'm saying that expert opinions aren't logically true because they are uttered by experts. I suggest you look a little more into these "debating rules" (logical fallacies), as they are basically old-timey resoning rules; i.e. popular and intuitive arguments that don't make sense. P.S. As I recall, the Foo Fighters were mixed up in HIV-denialism, not anti-vaccination.