Every argument - every argument, without exception, always appeals to some authority that informs on the conclusion… The question therefore, and as you explain very nicely, concerns the reliability of the particular authority, without committing one to the slippery slope of epistemological and moral relativism…
THANK YOU! I was thinking that very thing through the entire video! The only time an appeal to authority works is when you refer to the AUTHOR of a claim. "It's the law because Congress passed it and the President signed it." would be a logical appeal. "It's moral because Congress passed it and the President signed it." would be a fallacious claim.
I'd say all appeals to authority are bad arguments. Just because X says Y doesn't mean Y is true. And if X is more likely to be correct about Y, then there are logical reasoning's behind Y's validity. So X saying Y is never a good argument, however X's argument for Y can be a very good one. And one should instead use X's Argument instead of using X AS the argument.
When speakers or authors are promoted as a PhD, but their PhD isn’t related to the topic at hand. This type of shit is rampant in the new age scene and feels low key manipulative.
Kevin, I love your videos as they are great refreshers & easy enough to follow that I can show them to friends interested in this topic. In this case, I am worried because I've generally found appeals to authority as weak arguments at best, even when the authority's expertise is relevant to the discussion. case in point: your cardiologist tells you to cut down on the eggs and he says "eggs raise your cholesterol", and you read that studies refute this claim, but he retorts with: "I'm a doctor"
Great coverage and great series on these fallacies. IMO it's especially important when there's current real world events happening, and through propaganda campaigns spread misinformation, and most of the general public tends to just assume and appeal to authorities without being careful. Especially concerning claims that are very difficult and tricky to verify and corroborate with evidence when said evidence is dark in subject matter. For example it's good we're watching these in a theoretical setting, but in a real world current event when one group is accused of mass murdering women and children, and sex assault, and we mostly assume such claims are verified because the authority telling us so appears reliable, that situation is very easy to commit this fallacy.
3. The expert’s statements must be both related to the field of expertise and relevant to the question at hand. This is the relevance question seen earlier. 4. Direct knowledge could be acquired by the person making the appeal, at least in principle. That is, there must be some way of testing or verifying the expert’s claims.
5. The expert should not have vested interest in the claim so as to benefit from the outcome. Where such illegitimate bias is clear or suggested, the appeal is weakened to the point of being fallacious.
I have read a book on this quite some time ago. Here are some of the notes I took on it: Tindale, Christopher W. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 2007. Chapter 7: The Ad Verecundiam and the Misuse of Experts Critical Questions 1. Is the proposed person or source a genuine authority? 2. Did the authority make the attributed claim? 3. Are the authority and claim made relevant to the subject matter? Just thought you might find these useful.
(continued notes) 6 considerations crucial to deciding the presence of fallacious appeals to experts (7th is useful) 1. The authority or expert (whether a person, institution, or source) must be identified and should have a track record that increases the reliability of the statements over related statements from sources that do not possess the expertise. Appeals to unidentified experts with unknown or weak track records can be judged fallacious.
2. The authority should be in a field that lends itself to expert knowledge. That is, it should constitute a body of knowledge over which it would be appropriate for someone to have expertise. Failure to meet this condition will result in a fallacious appeal.
6. We would prefer that there be some consensus in the field-- or, where this does not exist, as with conflicting expert witnesses in a trial, that the claims are consistent with other knowledge within the relevant field. 7. Claims with more serious consequences should be given greater weight than those with less. Hope these help.
Well, in the broadest sense however, an appeal to authority is still a good argument form because it does offer a reason to belive, X usually being right. But it's bad because X could very well be wrong, and X usually has his/her own logical reasonings for their stance. So you should use the logical reasoning instead of just the person stating it.
The real problem (or virtue) in dealing with appeals to authority is that you really have to go and become an authority on the subject, or at least get some kind of undergrad grasp of the subject before you can say anything meaningful.
of course there is the exception of when X saying Y MAKES Y true, for instance like a king saying Doing Z is now illegal. Well X being the king makes the rules, so by virtue of him decreeing that doing Z is now illegal it is now illegal.
How strange to see someone being irrational making up excuses for why Appeal to Authority is not Appeal to Authority. As he tries to convince us, he's logical. waj.
Is it an appeal to authority if a father "assumes" authority over family? example: Mother: Our son just did X Son: Hey, why did you tell him that? Father: I am your father, therefore I deserve to know So in this case, imo just because he's a father, he isin't entitled to any information of what the Son did. Question is, is it an appeal to authority, or something else?
This is screwed up.. When did appeal to authority get changed?? I'm trying to find the point. Originally appeal to authority cannot be the FINAL authority on anything (even if the person is a subject matter expert.) Why? Because there's one standard that is ALWAYS above it. The scientific method. So the church couldn't trust that Copernicus knew the earth revolved around the sun, simply because he was an expert (and he certainly was.) The TESTING method he provided was falsifiable, and reproducible. (Even by non experts) THAT'S what made him correct. When people tried the method they couldn't find any flaws in it. So simply saying Expert A (even if they are a "valid" expert) will not make something true. It's the scientific testable basis that made it testable and falsifiable, from which others can repeat, that makes things true. (To the best of our knowledge)
In all seriousness then you are simply reverting back to an argument based on likelihood of him being right. him saying it doesn't make it right, but his track record is good evidence. I'd still avoid appeal to authority at all costs for all practical reasons, for instance if fermats last theorem had any significance to anything you were arguing about i'd learn it, or drop the argument.
Science is predicated upon empirical research and analysis of social facts" * "relations of production" * The labour process as valorisation process of exploitation of wage labour by capital * predicated upon selling and purchase and exploitation of labour power ___ Karl Marx was a scientist ___ an actual authority. Marxian analysis of capitalist commodity production by wage labour: "Let us not deceive ourselves on this. As in the 18th century, the American war of independence sounded the tocsin for the European middle class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working class. In England the process of social disintegration is palpable. When it has reached a certain point, it must react on the Continent. There it will take a form more brutal or more humane, according to the degree of development of the working class itself. "Apart from higher motives, therefore, their own most important interests dictate to the classes that are for the nonce the ruling ones, the removal of all legally removable hindrances to the free development of the working class. For this reason, as well as others, I have given so large a space in this volume to the history, the details, and the results of English factory legislation. One nation can and should learn from others. And even when a society has got upon the right track for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement - and it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society - it can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs. "To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them" (Marx "Capital Volume One") see: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm
Every argument - every argument, without exception, always appeals to some authority that informs on the conclusion… The question therefore, and as you explain very nicely, concerns the reliability of the particular authority, without committing one to the slippery slope of epistemological and moral relativism…
THANK YOU!
I was thinking that very thing through the entire video! The only time an appeal to authority works is when you refer to the AUTHOR of a claim.
"It's the law because Congress passed it and the President signed it." would be a logical appeal.
"It's moral because Congress passed it and the President signed it." would be a fallacious claim.
Relative expertise on a topic is NOT the only consideration, you leave out motives, this is especially important for history.
I'd say all appeals to authority are bad arguments. Just because X says Y doesn't mean Y is true. And if X is more likely to be correct about Y, then there are logical reasoning's behind Y's validity. So X saying Y is never a good argument, however X's argument for Y can be a very good one. And one should instead use X's Argument instead of using X AS the argument.
Isn't using X's argument exactly what you're doing? Using the person, themselves, doesn't make sense.
When speakers or authors are promoted as a PhD, but their PhD isn’t related to the topic at hand. This type of shit is rampant in the new age scene and feels low key manipulative.
Appeal to false authority.
These examples are of deferring to authority, meaning that it is no longer an argument.
Ive concluded the only time an appeal to authority is a good argument is when it's deterministic.
Kevin, I love your videos as they are great refreshers & easy enough to follow that I can show them to friends interested in this topic. In this case, I am worried because I've generally found appeals to authority as weak arguments at best, even when the authority's expertise is relevant to the discussion. case in point: your cardiologist tells you to cut down on the eggs and he says "eggs raise your cholesterol", and you read that studies refute this claim, but he retorts with: "I'm a doctor"
Great coverage and great series on these fallacies. IMO it's especially important when there's current real world events happening, and through propaganda campaigns spread misinformation, and most of the general public tends to just assume and appeal to authorities without being careful. Especially concerning claims that are very difficult and tricky to verify and corroborate with evidence when said evidence is dark in subject matter.
For example it's good we're watching these in a theoretical setting, but in a real world current event when one group is accused of mass murdering women and children, and sex assault, and we mostly assume such claims are verified because the authority telling us so appears reliable, that situation is very easy to commit this fallacy.
3. The expert’s statements must be both related to the field of expertise and relevant to the question at hand. This is the relevance question seen earlier.
4. Direct knowledge could be acquired by the person making the appeal, at least in principle. That is, there must be some way of testing or verifying the expert’s claims.
5. The expert should not have vested interest in the claim so as to benefit from the outcome. Where such illegitimate bias is clear or suggested, the appeal is weakened to the point of being fallacious.
I have read a book on this quite some time ago. Here are some of the notes I took on it:
Tindale, Christopher W. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 2007.
Chapter 7: The Ad Verecundiam and the Misuse of Experts
Critical Questions
1. Is the proposed person or source a genuine authority?
2. Did the authority make the attributed claim?
3. Are the authority and claim made relevant to the subject matter?
Just thought you might find these useful.
(continued notes)
6 considerations crucial to deciding the presence of fallacious appeals to experts (7th is useful)
1. The authority or expert (whether a person, institution, or source) must be identified and should have a track record that increases the reliability of the statements over related statements from sources that do not possess the expertise. Appeals to unidentified experts with unknown or weak track records can be judged fallacious.
Wikipedia is a bad appeal to authority that people use a lot
2. The authority should be in a field that lends itself to expert knowledge. That is, it should constitute a body of knowledge over which it would be appropriate for someone to have expertise. Failure to meet this condition will result in a fallacious appeal.
6. We would prefer that there be some consensus in the field-- or, where this does not exist, as with conflicting expert witnesses in a trial, that the claims are consistent with other knowledge within the relevant field.
7. Claims with more serious consequences should be given greater weight than those with less.
Hope these help.
Isn't this just a variation on or the opposite of the Ad Hominem fallacy? This is correct because I respect a property of the claimant.
An appeal and a deferral are two separate things, aren’t they?
Well, in the broadest sense however, an appeal to authority is still a good argument form because it does offer a reason to belive, X usually being right. But it's bad because X could very well be wrong, and X usually has his/her own logical reasonings for their stance. So you should use the logical reasoning instead of just the person stating it.
The real problem (or virtue) in dealing with appeals to authority is that you really have to go and become an authority on the subject, or at least get some kind of undergrad grasp of the subject before you can say anything meaningful.
Or just be a genius autodidact, but of course that is beyond the capabilities of nearly everyone.
Great content
of course there is the exception of when X saying Y MAKES Y true, for instance like a king saying Doing Z is now illegal. Well X being the king makes the rules, so by virtue of him decreeing that doing Z is now illegal it is now illegal.
How strange to see someone being irrational making up excuses for why Appeal to Authority is not Appeal to Authority. As he tries to convince us, he's logical. waj.
All appeals to an authority are fallacious.
Because I'm young, it can be hard to me.
But thanks for the tip!
P.S. I'm Korean!
Is it an appeal to authority if a father "assumes" authority over family? example:
Mother: Our son just did X
Son: Hey, why did you tell him that?
Father: I am your father, therefore I deserve to know
So in this case, imo just because he's a father, he isin't entitled to any information of what the Son did. Question is, is it an appeal to authority, or something else?
"Expert's have said COVID vaccines are safe and effective "
Unfortunately, a lot of people believed it (and also fell for the lie that it was the best or only choice).
False. Chuck Norris has already been to Venus (for vacation). Therefore Venus is acceptable.
Thanks for the informative video :)
This is screwed up.. When did appeal to authority get changed?? I'm trying to find the point.
Originally appeal to authority cannot be the FINAL authority on anything (even if the person is a subject matter expert.) Why? Because there's one standard that is ALWAYS above it. The scientific method. So the church couldn't trust that Copernicus knew the earth revolved around the sun, simply because he was an expert (and he certainly was.) The TESTING method he provided was falsifiable, and reproducible. (Even by non experts) THAT'S what made him correct. When people tried the method they couldn't find any flaws in it.
So simply saying Expert A (even if they are a "valid" expert) will not make something true. It's the scientific testable basis that made it testable and falsifiable, from which others can repeat, that makes things true. (To the best of our knowledge)
In all seriousness then you are simply reverting back to an argument based on likelihood of him being right. him saying it doesn't make it right, but his track record is good evidence. I'd still avoid appeal to authority at all costs for all practical reasons, for instance if fermats last theorem had any significance to anything you were arguing about i'd learn it, or drop the argument.
Science is predicated upon empirical research and analysis of social facts" * "relations of production" * The labour process as valorisation process of exploitation of wage labour by capital * predicated upon selling and purchase and exploitation of labour power ___ Karl Marx was a scientist ___ an actual authority. Marxian analysis of capitalist commodity production by wage labour:
"Let us not deceive ourselves on this. As in the 18th century, the American war of independence sounded the tocsin for the European middle class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working class. In England the process of social disintegration is palpable. When it has reached a certain point, it must react on the Continent. There it will take a form more brutal or more humane, according to the degree of development of the working class itself.
"Apart from higher motives, therefore, their own most important interests dictate to the classes that are for the nonce the ruling ones, the removal of all legally removable hindrances to the free development of the working class. For this reason, as well as others, I have given so large a space in this volume to the history, the details, and the results of English factory legislation. One nation can and should learn from others. And even when a society has got upon the right track for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement - and it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society - it can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs.
"To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them" (Marx "Capital Volume One") see: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm
Terrible example using nasa..... Planetary scientist 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣