The Authority Fallacy | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/don...
Tweet us! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel Facebook! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Talk about this episode on reddit! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel IRC! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
Become better at arguing! We dive into the Authority fallacy and show you who to avoid it.
Watch the Logical Fallacy playlist:
bit.ly/1wpuCcU
Watch the whole playlist in one video:
bit.ly/1ymvrEH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSIC:
"Europe" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Level 5" by Room for the Homeless (bit.ly/10N0Ykm)
"Bouncy Castle" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
":P" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Number Cruncher" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Little Birthday Acid" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Topskore" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Anti Vanishing Spray" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Tarty Prash" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Carry on Carillon" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Uptown Tennis Club" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Dream Of Autumn" by Night Shift Master
/ 08-dream-of-autumn-nig...
"Insert Toy For Coin" by Eatme (eatme.pro/music/)
"Dizor" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
"Lets go back to the rock" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
"Something like this" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSLATE THINGS @ ideachannel.sub...
Hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbr...)
Want some more Idea Channel?
Are Video Games About Their Mechanics?
• Are Videogames About T...
How To Create Responsible Social Criticism
• How To Create Responsi...
What Do Hot Sauce Labels Say About America?
• What Do Hot Sauce Labe...
Does Pop Culture Need To Be Popular?
• Does Pop Culture Need ...
Well I don't know about all of that, but if Mike says so I guess its true.
...wait a minute.
i c wut u did thar
😂
You haven't quite gotten this fallacy right. The problem is that there are two types of the Authority Fallacy: the formal fallacy and the informal fallacy. What you described above is the informal fallacy. However, you then explicitly deny that the formal fallacy is a fallacy. Let me explain.
If we take the syllogism:
John is an expert on topic S
John says A about S
Therefore A is true
Well, this in incorrect. Experts do get things wrong, and as do consensuses. For instance the consensus of scientists used to believe that the atom was indivisible. This is not longer excepted by the consensus of scientists. So which consensus is right?
The problem with the syllogism is the conclusion is too far reaching. The following argument thought is valid:
John is an expert on topic S
John says A about S
Therefore A is more likely to be true.
Expert opinion should increase the probability of something being true, but it does not make it true.
With an informal fallacy, the logic is sound, but a premise is clearly false. So for an informal authority fallacy, it would take the same logical form as the second syllogism, but the first premise, namely that John is a legit authority, is false. This is basically what you are talking about in the video. Such as a big fish in a small pond, an expert speaking outside their field, or someone who just considers themselves an authority are all examples of these false authorities, and are therefore examples of the informal authority argument.
It is also worth noting that the distinction is often pedantic. In most cases, when someone is saying, "So and so said such and such, so it is right", they are assuming all of the caveats that avoid the formal fallacy are mutually assumed.
Nothing is certain, is what you're saying. I think he understand that.
I'm sure he does too. However it is part of the definition of the fallacy, and one that is worth understanding.
Martin I find this very Ironic.
What are you saying is a formal version of this fallacy? The first argument?
Explains what's an authority fallacy, then produces an authority fallacy in the first 20 seconds.
" My Dad works at Nintendo. "
Good.
PwayStation
“Appealing to the scientific consensus on climate change is not an appeal to authority fallacy “...
Right, it’s an appeal to consensus fallacy.
5 likes in 1 year. That says a lot about the average intelligence of the audience of this channel.
If you don't trust actual experts in the topic then you would need to become an expert yourself in every single topic in existence. That's not practical therefore it's totally reasonable to trust that the scientific consensus is most likely true.
And they are only “experts” that YOU deem experts.
This comment section makes me happy. Yes, any appeal to any authority is an example of the fallacy. Authorities are just people and people aren't reliable. Even all legitimate credentials are an implicit example of the fallacy.
I think why people are trying to redefine this fallacy is because it means you have to wrestle with the idea that it can be reasonable to believe a technically fallacious position.
I've heard the authority fallacy defined different ways. Sometimes it is split as appeal to false authority which is easy to see as a fallacy and appeal to (legitimate) authority. But is not an appeal to a legitimate authority still a fallacy? Because if the authority is using any sort of reason to support his belief, then we should just appeal to that reason rather than a person who states that belief. If there is no reason or evidence behind his belief then it shouldn't be believed. And if there is a reason behind it, then cut out the middle man and just appeal to reason. The thing the person says isn't true or false BECAUSE he is an authority, even if he is likely to be right because of it. The other thing is, to a Catholic for example, the Pope is an authority on the bible, but to an atheist or protestant, the Pope isn't an expert. So rather than pitting your "expert" against my "expert" the actual evidence is wha5 should be considered. Therfore aren't all appeals to authority essentially pointless?
Yeah he's wrong. There are several fallacies in this category. Mike is denouncing one in favor of another, both of which are known fallacies.
But is not an appeal to a legitimate authority still a fallacy?
Yes and no. See anyone can be right, but a legitimate expert or authority is more likely to be correct in a field they specialize it.
But if you appeal to "Smart person said X!" to back yourself up, that is an appeal to authority. For example a doctor speaking on physics. Even if it's an individual like Albert Einstein, many things he said were wrong and of opinion, and we have vastly improved physics as a whole since his time(This does not negate the huge leaps and bounds he had made) so saying Einstein agrees with you doesn't make you right.
That being said it's all about levels of validity, a physicist speaking on physics in a general manor or about an advanced and well understood concept can not be an authority, a physicist stating hypothetical models ARE the answer making you right in accepting string theory as the Theory of Everything IS an appeal to authority.
Likewise it really comes down to expecting people to accept you're correct if someone smart agrees with you, because while it's less likely that person is wrong, they can still IN FACT be wrong. Plus the fact of quote mining; mistaking quotes etc etc etc.
JamesCizuz
The core attribute of a fallacy is that it does not prove. Whether the individual or source cited is or is not considered authoritative in the relevant area, familiarity is not proof.
Proof is proof. Authority is not.
***** You are correct. You did pretty much restate what I said but in a shorter amount of words.
"It seems that perfection is attained, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Using a fallacy doesn't defeat your claim, it's more accurate to call it a weak argument. Saying that someone defeats their claim if they use a fallacy is a fallacy fallacy.
Ha, truth. It just means that you have not proven that which you were trying to prove because of a fault in the structure of the argument. You could still be right, just haven't proven it if you used a fallacy.
The most tricky kind of this fallacy is when, for instance, people use scientist X as an authority in a field different from theirs. It's quite common to see comments like "Einstein said this so it's correct", yet what Einstein had said was about epistimology, philosophy, etc but not about physics, which was his area of authority.
@Jesus Christ It's always fallacious to say "Q is true" solely based on the premise that "scientist P says Q". My implication was that it's not fallacious to claim "Q is more likely to be true" on the premise that "scientist P, who is well-respected within his community, says Q about his field of expertise". The claim isn't that Q is true, but that we're inclined to believe Q because we don't have the expertise to check ourselves.
Consider a different example: it is not fallacious to say "it's probably 12:30" on the premise "X told me that it is 12:30". If I don't have a means to check the time I can only put my trust on X that they are telling the truth and that their assessment of the time is accurate enough. But it still would be fallacious to say "it is definitely 12:30" solely on the premise "X told me that it is 12:30".
Wym by authority
@@justinnamuco9096 Expertise, in this case.
This is practically devolves the argument into a contest of whoever has the most rubber stamps on their cited sources, rather than a discussion based on the reason and evidence at hand.
That’s why this is known as the appeal to false authority, and your point is the appeal to authority. I’m not sure why so many videos are getting this wrong.....maybe fascists haha
@@eclipsewrecker Just because somebody has a lab coat on doesn't mean they are telling the truth.
My subbox just exploded
Actually the reason climate change is not a fallacy is because of the evidence, not the fact scientists said it.
Well someone who actually has legitimate enough authority on a subject are allowed to be used as evidence in arguments, was his point. Usually the people with said authority have provided evidence, and the evidence is the reason they have that authority.
MrServantRider Then why go into the murky territory of using the authority as the evidence? Why not plain out use the evidence?
Bud Charles Probably to 'further legitimize" the evidence, I guess. Although it may also just be a form of convenience, which is more likely. Hmm... let me try a certain example.
If someone said "I have a friend at Nintendo said that the games that sell the best are the type of games that have been made over and over, classic 2D Mario style games." Ok, sure, but what does your friend really know about this?
If someone said "The CEO of Wal-Mart said that the games that sell the best are the type of games that have been made over and over, classic 2D Mario style games." Well, we know that The CEO is one of the guys with the most authority on the matter, so we can believe him if he said so.
The evidence of this does exist (I've seen charts on this matter btw) and if the evidence was provided by a game sales company's CEO himself then people would believe the evidence (By the way he has never said this, it's not the best example but it's all I got). Technically, it may be easier to just quote the person WITH the authority, than to try and list up and show all the charts, so that's where the convenience comes in for the sake of making faster arguments.
I apologize if this made no sense to you, I am not the best at explaining things. :3 Hope it helped though!
MrServantRider That may all be true but still just coming from an important person doesn't make something evidence. If you said "The CEO of Wal-Mart said that the games that sell the best are the type of games that have been made over and over, classic 2D Mario style games. Here's his proof: [url, article name, physical evidence, whatever]", that would be evidence.
Bud Charles A fair argument, I don't really have a counter to that. XD When it comes down to it, hard evidence is better than verbal evidence, even if it comes from someone who would be hard to disagree with. I do think quoting someone who did the research can help an argument, but it wouldn't be as useful I guess.
Man, I'm going to stop teaching classes and just start showing your videos every day.
Yes. Mke is the new Jones.
You managed to get this fallacy completely and totally wrong, within the first 35 seconds. Congrats.
I'd like to add onto this fallacy.
Just because a person is an expert in a neighboring field, does not make the person an expert in the field that is discussed.
A scientist in chemistry is not an expert in biology and thus using him in a biology argument is still a authority fallacy even though he is claimed to be a scientist.
His authority in biology is as much accepted as yours or mine, which is none.
This is so wrong it teeters on the line between irony and manipulation.
His example is called "differing to experts" which is not a logical fallacy. And he uses it pretending to be an expert on logical fallacies to describe the logical fallacy of "appealing to authority."
It weirds me out, that the writers/host of this set of programs decided to narrow the target viewers to only those who have friends who are concerned about their ability to discuss matters.
What about the other several million of us who simply want a good explanation of the concept and perhaps clever ways to use or defeat it?
Some conspiracy theorists, after viewing the various 'Fallacy' videos might be thinking someone is purposely writing weird copy to make PBS look/sound bad/incompetent. Hurrumph.
This video is solely for others to send to others??
Mr. PBS Idea Channel needs to rethink! Sheesh! :)
The opening 3 sentences of all the 'Fallacy' bits is kind of demeaning, and has a putting off effect, making the rest of us feel almost unwelcome to be viewing the video. Phooey!
Get that pine cone out of your ass.
Nah, it's just a way to build viewership of what would be a niche thing by suggesting you present it to someone who is making a crappy argument. Which is fine, I hope it does well.
Dan Lewis
It's still stuck in there, I see. Should I get my pliers?
With respect, I don't think that Mike quite got the actual distinction between a fallacious appeal to authority and a legitimate appeal to the heterogeneous consensus of experts quite right. What makes the formal Appeal to Authority fallacious, in other words, is not so much that one is appealing to an authority who lacks the requisite expertise on the topic being discussed, but that the person making the appeal assumes that *because* his or her "authority" has claimed something, the thing being claimed, therefore, is (or ought to be considered), for no other reason and without regards or appeal to any other evidence, true.
In the case, therefore, of those who appeal to the scientific consensus on global warming when seeking to persuade others that global warming is real, the relevant difference between what those people are doing in that case (when the appeal is *not* fallacious), vis-a-vis those who are committing a *fallacious* appeal to authority, is not that the scientists happen to be experts, whereas someone else's "authority" is merely a know-nothing; but, rather, the difference lies in the fact that, while the former group has a respect for the scientific consensus (and thus thinks (and argues) that others ought not lightly dismiss it), they are still attempting to persuade others on the basis of the actual evidence (and are not, therefore, formally arguing that simply because the majority of scientists say one thing, whatever they say, therefore, should be considered true). The latter group (i.e., those who are actually formally committing a fallacious appeal to authority), in contrast, believes something (and thinks that the rest of us ought to believe it too) solely on the basis of the putative authority of the person making the claim.
Science, in other words, confers a prima facie, or tentative, respect upon any consensus that has been achieved precisely because of the methodological constraints that science places on its own inquiry which make such consensus unlikely to occur in the absence of truth. Understanding this reality lends credence to any claim that happens to garner enough support to achieve a well-accepted status. But, this is *not* the reason we believe it. Such claims are still capable of being false, and it is the totality of *evidence,* therefore, upon which any scientific claim, regardless of its number of supporters, must and does still rest.
Understanding this and the legitimate epistemic weight of the phenomenon of consensus is one thing, as is giving such consensus (even if fallible) the prima facia respect it deserves (say, by not dismissing it lightly or out-of-hand), but this is markedly different from a blatant appeal to authority in which a person says that a claim must be true simply because a source he or she respects says it is. When a person, for example, says that something must be true simply because their holy book says it is, that is a perfect example of a fallacious appeal to authority, and the difference between this and what others are doing when they point to the heterogeneous consensus of experts on an issue is hopefully obvious.
Much respect, Mike! Love the channel!
Bingo. This video is an epic fail, completely misrepresenting the fallacy.
But why appeal to experts as persons, when you could appeal to the actual (consensus of ) scientific research instead?
I'd disagree, in that this definition of the authority fallacy seems to encourage us not to question the truth of certain statements, provided they come from "accepted" authorities (i. e. A particular expert in the scientific community speaking about his field of expertise, or the scientific consensus as a whole). The authority fallacy is a fallacy not for the particular authorities it picks, but because it tries to substitute authority for evidence discussion. No matter how well respected the expert is, we should always ask for primary evidence. Of course this brings up an interesting point. Since we don't have time to check all claims scrupulously , at what point do we stop trying and start trusting what someone else says?
"Since we don't have time to check all claims scrupulously , at what point do we stop trying and start trusting what someone else says?" well that's the problem right there. you do have a good point but if your are going to settle for what someone else says i think it's better to settle on the physicist for matters of physics rather than a chemist.
Wulframm Rolf The thing is I believe this is dependent on how invested we are in the argument. If, for example, someone argues with me about climate change, they can cite their particular authority as speaking truth (even if this authority is wrong) because they don't come about the argument enough to go check. Similarly, I can cite my particular authority as being correct , even if it isn't, because I have neither the knowledge nor the interest to check the arguments in detail. However, if I was more invested, if I cared more about the outcome of the discussion, I'd definitely check the arguments exhaustively
Jorge Medina i guess it comes to a point at which you would have to make a judgment about the other guys source. I have a friend who I like to have debates with. We have this thing where we make a point and back it with sources derived from the web. i remember quite a few times i had to shoot down their source because it was a .com website. i also look at things like interviews and studies and occasionally call them out "Ok that guy probably wasn't the best person to interview" or "In this study they forgot to to include this variable" and the like. It's a good process because a lot of times we both go away with something we've learned even if our minds haven't changed.
I guess if you really care about how you argue with someone the sources matter less then what you say about those sources.
Scientists are concerned with Data. Scientists are not concerned consensus.
Lawyers are concerned with consensus. Therefore: Authority fallacy applies to consensus theories with 400yr/4.6Bil yr data ratio.
Using the consensus itself, rather than any evidence produced, _is_ an example of the fallacy. To date, I have never seen anyone present any evidence. Everyone I have seen argue that global warming is man-made has cited the consensus as though it were proof in and of itself.
I, as your opponent, am not obligated to accept any authority or expert you may present. Their word is not evidence. In trusting authorities, you substitute their judgement for your own. And you can do that. But that is not sufficient to convince someone else.
Logically, either you have the evidence that convinced the experts or you don't. *Yes, that's a tautology and must be true in all cases.) It you have the evidence, you can present it and don't need to appeal to authority to begin with. If you don't, you can't really confirm that the evidence is even there, let alone compelling. You may _trust_ that it is there. But it is still an appeal to authority.
+John Undefined Person:
There is Google Scholar. If you really want to find evidence, or lackthereof, for global warming, just start there. Or if you don't know where to start, go onto a subreddit and ask for frequently quoted sources. It is entirely possible that you have never seen anyone present evidence to date about global warming. Of course, if the setting has always been a newspaper article, an article comments section, youtube comments, or a general discussion/off-topic forum board, that's like looking for a real diamond in a cubic zirconium store, failing to find one, and then concluding that diamonds are rare/don't exist. You're looking in the wrong place.
+John Undefined
I think you are making a legitimate and much-needed point about the importance of basing your own beliefs upon evidence and of looking for evidence before just accepting something on the basis of what others say. However, I would still argue that merely *using* consensus is not, in itself, fallacious; rather it's *how* you use it. If everyone that you have heard is saying that you should believe in global warming solely because it's what almost all the experts believe, then you are right to object and call them out, and I'd be right there with you in every instance in which that happens. If, however, such folks believe that you (or others) are too lightly dismissing expert opinion or the scientific consensus on the subject and are therefore merely trying to impress upon you the epistemic weight (a weight, albeit, which falls short of proof) that such a consensus confers upon their beliefs and which they feel your view lacks and which you are not appreciating, that, to me, is something quite different. Now, I will grant that the two can appear quite similar. But, is it possible that, in at least some cases, you have been mistaking the latter for the former?
ksmoker27
I look at it this way. Either there is evidence or there is not. If there is evidence, let it be presented to me. If there is no evidence, there is no reason for me to believe. And if you deem me "unworthy" of the evidence, you should not expect me to believe.
+The Count of Menea Calais This is an argument about logic, not about climate change. Just because it would be convenient to use a fallacy to argue in favor of certain ideas regarding climate change, does not mean it would be rational.
+John Undefined This should clarify what the fallacy is to everyone. The fallacy was first observed by John Locke in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" where he wrote:
"The first is to allege the opinions of men, whose parts, learning, eminency, power, or some other cause has gained a name, and settled a reputation in the common esteem with some kind of authority. When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it, and question the authority of men who are in possession of it. This is apt to be censured, as carrying with it too much of pride, when a man does not readily yield to the determination of approved authors, which is wont to be received with respect and submission by others; and it is looked upon as insolence for a man to set up and adhere to his own opinion against the current stream of antiquity; or to put it in the balance against that of some learned doctor, or otherwise approved writer. Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities, thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them. This, I think, may be called argumentum ad verecundiam."
The fallacy which the video is describing is actually appeal to a non-authority, not appeal to authority. So if someone were to assert that an authority says something without explaining why they think it's right, that's an appeal to authority, if someone were to say, link to PBS Ideas Channel to verify their definition of a fallacy, that would be appeal to a non-authority.
Are people seriously complaining that he suddenly uploaded 6 videos?
Yes. Empirical analytic data has shown that if you upload too many videos at one time, like more than three in a single day, you actually start losing subscribers because they believe you are "spamming" their feed box.
I love all these, but you should know "consensus" is actually VERY anti-science.
Stop using that word in association with science.
How so?
How?
Swing and a miss on this one
I'm loving this series, keep them coming, there in no shortage of them to explore!
While we rely on the opinions of experts/authorities all the time, it's because they are more likely to be correct/valid than others. This isn't doing the fallacy of an appeal to authority.
But if one argues that a certain claim is definitely correct solely based on it coming from an expert (and not on the merits of the claim), that is also an "Appeal to Authority Fallacy."
There's a difference between:
"My doctor tells me this medicine is the best possible for my condition. He's a medical expert and I should heed his advice."
and
"My doctor tells me this medicine is the best possible for my condition. He's a medical expert. He's definitely right."
I wish there was a video for every fallacy.
More of this please.
This videos are awesome.
I would like to call out the PBS idea channel on the authority fallacy. What authority do you have to confirm your own point
I must argue a point: The Idea that a large and/or well credited group claim something should not mean that it should be taken as indisputable fact, and in the context of the example argument presented in the video even if the Uncle was not preforming some form of peer reviewed study as he may have purchased or considered purchasing a car and upon inspecting multiple examples found that the parts where sub-par. in short even if one is not formally considered an "expert" on a subject they should not necessarily be discredited particularly if they have had first hand experience with the subject.
Well, because he's bought a lot of parts doesn't necessarily mean he's had a good unbiased view of the market in that particular example... Like, just because they have experience doesn't absolutely mean they know any more than the average guy, because their experience mightn't be a good representative poll. If it were that kind of unbiased wide range of examples that you'd get from the scientific blahdyblah things, the examples SHOULD be more accurate of the larger image
Not gonna lie, when I saw "The Authority Fallacy" I automatically thought of Triple-H.
THANK YOU for saying "conversing" not "conversatimg". It really bothers me when ppl use the word "conversating". Probably because they think it's a word but it just gets really irritating.
Would you have understood what he meant if he had said "conversating"? If so, and if most people would have understood it then "conversating" IS a word. It has a meaning which everyone (or at least *enough*) people agree on. It doesn't make a statement ambiguous.
Hate to break it to you, but all words are made up. We get new ones all the time. And old ones go extinct. Its the very nature of language irregardless of your opinion about it? (See what I did there? ;) )
My friend John is an electrician, and he said don't lick bare wires. I think it works here.
He's actually wrong that scientists are "authorities". They are experts. An authority is an entity that upholds and enforces the rules or stipulations per se of a particular subject. Scientists generally don't see themselves as authorities, but more of practitioners. The very nature of scientific ethos must be malleable and adaptive to new information to actually be as effective, profound, and reliable as it is. If scientists were authorities, there would be absolutely no progress and our understanding of how the universe works would no longer be valid because we wouldn't accept contrary views due to that an _authority_ cannot be challenged, based on this guy's logic.
Lawrence Krauss laid this out very well when responding to a student at a talk he had at a university with Richard Dawkins. look up: "Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss vs. Catholic Physics Student" on UA-cam.
Somehow after COVID, using authorities as proof in any context isn't convincing. His example as valid use would include the cdc, Who, ...NHS...
I don't know, Mr. Authority said that this is not true.
The one I get most often is the argument that creationism is true because Isaac Newton was a creationist.
*One's personal beliefs does not guarantee the validity of an entire theory.*
***** Obviously. Sorry, I don't quite see what your comment, correct as it is, has to do with my comment?
EE Ehrenberg One the creationist's side there is the fallacy that gravity is also a theory. The truth is, neither dumb creationists nor dumb evolutionist know what a theory is in scientific terms.
Gravity is a good example. Pretty much ALL of the scientists and "experts" have spent the last few hundred years and even the last several decades talking about Gravity and acting like indisputable expert authorities about Gravity and anything else was just Wrong etc etc. And we all just accepted "THeY" are the experts and know the truth much more than anyone else. After all, Gravity is so plain and obvious and we can see its effects ourselves so "their" expert opinion is absolute!! Turns out there never was any such thing as Gravity and it was falsely identified as a particular yet unproven force. It was So easy to trick people by misdirecting attention to the effects of "Gravity" as proof so no one seemed to notice that All this time NoBODY EVER could definitively say WHAT it was (not its Effects or How it works). If you haven't heard about this it is Now accepted that Gravity as WE always knew it does NoT exist!! There was no big announcement of this but it is basically the "truth" NoW
What about if you make a point about the justifications of incarceration and someone argues "What experience do you have of the justice system?" I feel it is opposite but similar in that they are not attacking the argument, but insinuating that your argument is not as valid because of the lack of experience.
Plz do one on the "Fallacy" fallacy
This fallacy is practically the foundation for ALL manmade systems. Government, religion, finance - ALL dependent on appeal to authority.
0:42 no, but it is an example of misinformation if not downright lie. changing the parameters of your model to provide a desired outcome is not producing evidence of your thesis.
More fallacies please! This is going to be incredibly useful to link to. A lot.
No. The "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy is based upon the simple fact that the validity of an argument has absolutely nothing to do with the credentials of the person presenting it, expert or not. An argument must stand on its own merits. General Relativity is not true simply because Einstein says so. Did you actually study Logic?
I find it hard to follow your thoughts with the ADD gifs going on.
Remember to appeal this video's authority.
You discuss complex issues which are often new to your viewers. You speak very quickly, which mean the mind has very little time to grasp and process these concepts before you move on to the next thing. This makes comprehension more difficult. Then, you distract your audience with sound effects that make your voice even harder to hear. This makes your message less effective. It looks cute, but it's making it harder to learn what you're talking about.
I disagree with the arbitrary assertion that invoking experts as an authority is not a fallacy. Ultimately any argument should rest in the evidence, not on the authority of any perceived expert.The scientific consensus has been wrong in the past - plate tectonics was rejected for a long time by the scientific community. Also, theories around nutrition have evolved over the years. There are many more examples. A further implication - by saying we should accept the authority of experts assumes that our current knowledge is sufficient and that the consensus will not change in the future.
it also depend if the so called scientist and experts are independent, same go with politicians, and one could claim not many are anymore, but that is another discussion
An argument in the form of "X is believed to be true by experts, therefore X is true" would be fallacious. But an argument in the form of "X is believed to be true by experts, therefore X is more likely to be true than not" is not fallacious. And the latter is what people are typically arguing when they use an appeal to expertise. If expert opinion meant absolutely nothing, then nobody would take the advice of their doctor regarding their health and well-being. Clearly, there must be some merit to expert opinion.
***** I don't disagree with that form of argument. However it does lead to the conclusion that an appeal to expert opinion (alone) is not an incontestable argument in itself. It is reasonable, then, to appeal to additional sources of evidence.
Alexander Hamilton yea i agree with you on that I sometimes think the authority fallacy is kinda bullshit
"Ultimately any argument should rest in the evidence, not on the authority of any perceived expert."
But what if you can't understand the evidence? Because you're not trained, for instance, in brain surgery?
To me there is another factor. We assume that John's opinion is not tainted or biased due to many many possible factors such as grants, financial kickbacks, financial motivation, political leanings, his experiences/education, his preconceptions, his wanting a desired outcome or simply he/she makes a huge mistake either consciously or unconsciously of the facts, data, interpretation, omission, co-mission. It is important to keep a wide open mind, get multiple sources, have it reviewed by an independent source with no interest in the outcome in any way. In spite of taking precautions, it is possible that the outcome is dead wrong and the question is too unstable to predict at all. To take the advice of ONE source of data is a risky venture fraught with pitfalls and risks that must be disclosed. There are so many examples of "experts" blowing it, look at the sub implosion.
I think you got this wrong. believing what an expert says without looking for evidence supporting their claims is Authority fallacy.
for example Albert Einstein believed that quantum physics is wrong in a way and it can't be the answer although he was expert in the field - the best actually - and published the very first paper which later was considered the start of the quantum theory.
Ran by this video just searching the word "Authority" 'cause I'm a non primary english speaker and it 1. lived up to my goals 2. very interesting point actually, I have a lot of those "my uncle is an engineer" around me and the struggle is real
I have heard this definition before, and I think it is, as others have commented before, wrong.
So the falacy is: The assumption that because an authority on the field has said so, it is true, without further evidence.
Examples:
1. One cites an authority that supports what one self thinks but does not mention, or does not know that, other authorities disagree.
2. One cites an old source and fails to mention that, or does not know that, recent research has concluded otherwise.
Supposing you know something about the car industry because you know a car mechanic is just ... yeah, you know.
These are great. It would be awesome if you continued making these fallacy videos.
The authority fallacy applies to authority by power, not authority by expertise.
Actually, the authority fallacy isn't any of that. The authority fallacy details that one can not rest on their credential in circumstances where they have no argument or one that doesn't withstand scrutiny. It means if a PhD in Astrophysics has a theory about string theory that is debunked by an undergrad that theory is still debunked. It means that you have to complete the QED regardless of what your 'authority' is.
What if the person you are talking to is an expert in the field and still commits this fallacy? what if he, instead of providing adequate reasoning, says "i know because I am a legitimate expert."
I’ll have to rewatch the video. I don’t remember what the message of this video was. 😂
I’m a fan of fallacious reasoning tho. I spend a lot of time looking into them and how they are used.
I watched all of them, these are awesome, thank you!
just because something isn't the consensus doesn't mean it is wrong.
just becaus it wasn't something an expert said doesn't mean it's wrong.
that's basicly what the apeal to autority falicy is.
I always call this the Hermoine fallacy
Emma Watson is perfect though.
Have no problem accepting my use of fallacy. Got a B in Logic class but I still do it. Especially when I feel threatened and angry.
At that point rational explanations are not enough. One must have the skill to defuse then reengage and most would rather attack. The opportunity for consensus gone forever.
Fallacy or no I still walk away and no one wins.
Logic is not enough.
I had it backward until yesterday haha so many years of being wrong. Sunken costs lol
Stanley Milgrim Experiment. Obedience to authority.
South Park probably illustrates this fallacy the most consistently, as the town constantly appeals to Randy Marsh (Stan's dad) for "expert advice" just because he as a degree in geology.
I am loving this spam omg these are great!!
uploading a few videos in a row isnt spam
Its 4-5 vids, thats not spamming, that is simply releasing several videos on a topic at once. If it was upwards in the 10s then yeah spam but i do not wish to argue the semantics of spam. Now stop +1ing your own comments and stop trying to stir useless arguments.
What if Neil degras Tyson publicly stated that the earth was flat. Does that make the claim more valid because he’s a world renowned astro physicist ? I would think not
You forgot to mention that this fallacy also apply to negative authority. It's especially obvious with Hitler and the Nazis. Dismissing an argument as being held by Hitler is done very often.
For example it is totally impossible to have a debate about eugenism. I'm not even saying that I'm for or against it, but the debate is just impossible. The nazis were eugenists therefore eugenism is wrong period.
I agree that you would want to use an 'expert' to support your point, HOWEVER, it bothers me to discount a person's expertise unless they have a degree or have performed studies about the subject. Perhaps Mike's uncle does have personal experience with Korean parts and can offer information. It doesn't make it invalid. Think of our legal system. An expert is defined as a person who has more knowledge about something beyond that of the average person. Of course one would want to call the most qualified experts to testify, but it doesn't mean that others do not have the intellectual or experiential authority to testify.
What is the name of the converse of this fallacy, where other people assume that you need to be a specific demographic in order for your logic to be sound and to have the right to argue. "You are not a female, so you don't get a say in politics involving sexism because your gender keeps you from understanding our issues!" ?
Just a quick question to see if i understand this fallacy correctly. Is this the same one where when you are a grown adult and yet your parent decides you have to do something ridiculous, despite you having a better option and solid training as to why you should do it your way, "because I'm your mother/father/other person of authority"? If so, that's awesome. I think i know someone that I might send this to.
That is more a form of ad hominem, specifically of the order of guilt by association.
a.k.a the "My dad works at nintendo" argument.
How about when my mom disputes my argument by saying she's my mom?
I think you should have said and made it more clear that this fallacy can also be used when a person cites a person that actually *is* an authority, but not in the field in question. For example, quoting a person that "refutes" global warming, but he's a PHD in molecular medicine or, maybe, law. Or for another example, a chemical engineer or a historian trying to refute the theory of evolution.
The important thing is to remember that a person *can be* an authority, yes, but if he isn't an authority and/or researcher *in the particular field in which the debate is talking about*, then his opinion is as valuable as any layman on the subject.
What makes this guy the authority?
Reading between the lines, a vague appeal of "scientific consensus" is a perfectly legitimate argument. What a stupid claim.
I would say appeal to authority just doesn't in itself make the argument valid. Only the argument is what matters. Cyril Wecht is a highly trained and experienced pathologist, so should pass the valid authority test, yet his views concerning the Kennedy assassination are just bunk.
A verey usefull video... I will use this often.
Is there something called the self-defeating fallacy? I've experienced something that I'm not sure where to place on the list of major fallacies.
It's sad that congressmen are their own authority fallacy.
Ah this is a fallacy I commonly use.
This is actually wrong on so many levels. The global warming example, for example, is THE typical example where this logical fallacy applies since the experts in the field are supplying speculation as proof of man made global warming and shoots down anyone pointing out that fact. Doesn't matter how qualified the speculation is, it's still just speculation and nothing can change that fact.
What was the most babies you ever saw
at one time? What kind of day was it?
The someone concerned is my PHL Professor
Does this include using the bible in religion arguments?
It would be awesome if these videos had multilanguage subtitles! I would definitely use them in spanish :)
Hahahhahahahahahaaaahahhaa.....well Tell that to Anthony Fuchi
I got my answer in the first half
It goes hand in hand with the argumentum ad populum and the moralistic fallacy. If you can understand these two you will understand the Appeal to authority fallacy. While you are at it understand the naturalistic fallacy to better see the moralistic fallacy. Because all these 4 fallacies I have mentioned go hand in hand with each other I think, and if it helps I have a x9000 masters degree in philosophy so appeal to my authority and do what I say.
This description is just plain wrong. The appeal to authority fallacy means you should just take someone's word based on their expertise rather than arguing the points with data and facts, not about whether the authority is valid or not. Even good authorities are wrong about things all the time. Remember we are talking about situations where there is an argument to be had. It would not be an appeal to authority fallacy to just gather uncontested facts from those who should know.
He talks in such a way that the the message can be appealing to certain audience and popularized. Apparently, PBS cannot take a position to criticize the Global Warming. It is very sad to see this kind of behavior to use sophistry.
fun.
yet
closet.
"Saying global warming is true and man made, because the vast majority of scientist that study it, produce evidence that support this claim, is not an example of the authority fallacy"
Argumentum ad populum, argumentum ab auctoritate, both or just a really bad argument? Authority never necessitates truth, in most cases only that, said person with authority, possesses power or/and a body of knowledge. It is implicit that, before a scientist consider something true, they must have evidence to support that view, this follows naturally from the scientific profession. Stating this explicitly, does not make your argument any less fallacious.
Global Warming is true and man made, because scientist x says so (implicit: he's got evidence to support it, otherwise he wouldn't believe it) is argumentum ab auctoritate.
Global Warming is true and man made because the vast majority says so is Argumentum ad populum.
Global Warming is true and man made because the vast majority of scientist says so (implicit: they got evidence to support it, otherwise they wouldn't believe it), seems to me like argumentum ab auctoritate AND argumentum ad populum.
Equally saying "global warming is true and man made, because 97% of scientists think so" is fallacious. "Global Warming is true and man made" is a claim that can only be supported by empirical evidence (i.e. 1# the globe is warming and 2# the primary, or only cause of warming is humans).
Only the evidence itself, can determine whether a scientific claim is truthful, not who or how many that produced that said evidence. How that evidence is produced is an entirely different matter.
...time to send this to every policy debater ive ever hit
One question somewhat relate to this: What happens when the subject being discussed (or argued) is the validity of an authority. i.e. I want to compare the scientific method to holy texts or liturgies because both are considered irrefutable by practitioners because the thing in question uses itself to prove itself true. So since the authority that would usually be used for the discussion (in this case the scientific method) is what the discussion is calling into question, what authority could be used for the discussion? Or is this argument itself part of another fallacy?
Authorities are often right, however they are also sometimes wrong. That's why this is a fallacy, not because people so often cite made up authorities.
The true fallacy is believing that ANY claims by Any authority can really be trusted as objective and TRuE; it still amounts to nothing more than BlinD FaitH except in rare cases...and even then it is only situational truth and far from objective or indisputable
This is not accurate at all. His definition is inaccurate, and the example he uses for what is not an appeal to authority, actually is an appeal to authority.
The appeal to authority fallacy is when anybody uses any authority to argue a point, instead of using facts. For example, if a climate scientist argues a position on climate change using temperature change over time and its correlation to data showing emissions over time, then this is not an appeal to authority.
If the same climate scientists claims that they have decades of experience, many published works and peer reviewed articles, and their conclusions should be given more respect than some random 19 year old in a UA-cam video...this is an appeal to authority, and a fallacious argument.
If the 19 year old UA-camr has better data than the climate scientist, and makes a better argument, despite the experience difference, then an objective listener should allow the possibility that the "expert" is wrong.
No this one was not helpful... because it was wrong.
Authority at best is a citation, and at worse a use of force. The point of pointing out a fallacy is to be explicit about what demonstrates veracity (similar in style to negative rights exemplifying the sense of "American freedom"), to which a citation does not, especially if you've spent any time on wikipedia. Though I'm not attempting to make a fallacy fallacy concerning global warming, your definition here is subversive to the essence of fallacies point blank. You should have used something like 1986 Challenger. If you asked anyone in charge whether the mission would be successful the answer would have been "yes" contrary to the demonstrated fact. And, if you wanted a post-facto flavor of the fallacy you have the soon to be classified as infamous Feynman right there.
wow this is really old
:35 got the plug in for ‘global warming’, the fallacy of ‘settled science’!