This fallacy is almost always explained incorrectly. Appeal to authority is most commonly used to stifle debate because an experts has rendered a judgment and it assumes the expert, even making the judgement in their area of expertise, is correct. Obviously we seek expert opinion from people who practice what they comment on but that alone is not enough. The argument and evidence have to be unassailable and used to bolster the claim. Not the authority making it. People, including experts, are not void of using their authority for corrupt purposes.
heaven and hell exist according to a man who to lived 2000 years ago. but why should we believe him? well, the guy walked on water, can enter a locked room, fly in the air, drives away demons, turned water into wine, healed sick people, raise the dead, lived a perfect life, very humble, full of love, the smartest man ever lived, fulfilled a lot of prophecy and most of all resurrected 3 days after His death.
... and St. Augustine with all probability could have said what he said regarding heaven, hell, and the church because of the trust and confidence he owed to that one Authority of the Man-God, the Logos, who founded the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church whose fidelity to her founder's teachings, may had been what made Augustine's heart (and perhaps even his mind) restless.
Based on this thinking, appeal to authority leads me to engage with Arguments and evidence of the arguer not whether the authority is credible or not. The video states that if the authority is not qualified in the subject or has bias in the subject, even if qualified, then appealing to really any authority leads to weak Inferences. I'm led to Agnosticism on many issues, because I don't trust that I have beliefs based on Argument and Evidence but based on figures with bias or figures not qualified regardless of the neutrality or non-neutrality of the supposed authority figure.
No. The "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy is based on the fact that the truth of an argument has absolutely nothing to do with the credentials of the person presenting it, expert or not. General Relativity is true, but not because Einstein says so. Did you actually study Logic?
This is not correct. Appeal to authority refers to suggesting we should just take someone's word on something because after all that person should know. The appeal to authority fallacy does not distinguish between good and bad authorities. It is obvious when a person is an unqualified authority, so that is not the issue. The fallacy is about relying upon expert opinion rather than presenting the data and facts. Relativity isn't true just because Einstein said it's true. Get it?
Due to lockdown in our country, we were forced to take online classes. And that were anything but helpful. And teachers weren't that supportive either. Thanks to your lectures I'm comprehending them well. Best of luck with your videos 👍🏼
Is the following an appeal to authority fallacy: We should do "A" even though there may be negative consequences because we should follow science. I ask because in this case an authority is not being explicitly referenced, rather the abstract term "science". The term here would refer to the current knowledge or understanding of a phenomenon. Because the knowledge is often incomplete, and the understanding is often wrong, that "science" if often wrong. To me that means the above would be an appeal to authority fallacy.
Yes, I completely agree. The term "science" is loosely referred to here. Anybody can make an appeal to science. We need to know first which scientific discipline and proof are being referred to. Thanks Bill.
dunno if anyone gives a shit but if you're stoned like me during the covid times then you can watch all of the latest series on instaflixxer. Have been watching with my brother for the last few weeks =)
As far as I recall, it simply means that an argument can not rest solely on the claims of an authority / expert. One must eventually throw in some actual objective evidence to support the argument. And if there is no actual evidence, then the claims of an authority are more or less useless.
TL;DR: Neither trust, nor "authority," take the place of valid argument. Thus, teach the truth: it's a fallacy, but one that must be employed judiciously. Proof via "authority" is a temporary stand-in until a valid argument can be found. This is some seriously concerning teaching right here. Deeply problematic. 1) Where does authority come from? 2) What happens when Authority P declares Authority Q to be false, and Q the same to P (an all too common occurrence)? Or are we supposing there is only one valid authority on a matter? (possibly even more concerning). All appeals to authority are fallacies. However, totally mistrusting anyone and everyone (including ourselves) is neither healthy nor practical. Thus, we must lend a degree of trust if we are to function in society. In other words: we must, at times, be fallacious if we are to function equanimitably with others. Still, cognizance of the fact that neither trust, nor "authority," take the place of valid argument is of utmost importance. Thus, teach the truth: it's a fallacy, but one that must be employed judiciously.
I watched your video informal fallacy.. it is much better but i found it difficult to understand.. Maybe because of examples... And all types of fallacy's are not explained..
Hi Mah Noor, we are still on the process of making the video for all other types of fallacies. it's just that we don't have enough time to do it. But I'm sure we will get there soon. Thank you so much, Man Noor. Best wishes!
At 1:20 you completely contradict what you said previously. Appeal to authority applies to seeking the refuge of an expert to support your stand. It's not about whether the authority is qualified or not. Regardless of how knowledgeable a person may be, he or she may still be wrong.
@eclipsewrecker Appeal in this context is difficult to define in words. I can only use examples. I might try to get you to change your mind by appealing to your feeling of pity or racial bias...or your regard for authority... any of which would be logical fallacy. Only sound reason and facts are valid.
@@marksesl exactly. An appeal is not an argument. An appeal is a referral or an attempt to dishonestly manipulate. How I’ve always understood the difference is with the “math problem” explanation. If two people are debating the answer to ‘2+2:’ the one who explains how it’s 4 has made an argument, and the one who refers to the math book’s answer key has appealed to authority. Anything I missed?
@eclipsewrecker What you are missing is that that kind of book is considered fact. It's not about listing opinions. Any other book would agree. There is nothing to debate. Appeal used as a fallacy is kind of like pander or cajole. You pander to a woman's sense of vanity to manipulate her.
@@marksesl 1) what an authority states has little to do with an attempted argument, outside of an argument about what that authority states. 2) what is printed in a book is not a scientific fact by being printed in a book. What makes 2+2=4 the fact is that it can be explained and that we get the same answer every time we do the experiment/equation. 2+2=4 is short hand. 3) there are many printing errors that have been found, even in books of authority. …Therefore, the book is a reference and not an argument. It is an appeal and not the “why” or the “how.” That’s the way I understand it. This of course is within the context of making an argument. It’s logical and reasonable to use authorities in many ways, but it’s not an argument. “Show your work.”
@@PHILOnotes okay you just got me to watch your video again... You state: “The fallacy of appeal to authority occurs when the authority cited is not qualified in the relevant matters, or is not free from adverse influences.” As I understand it that is the appeal to false authority, but I conceded to you in your comment section. Then, I asked what the term/fallacy was for the use of an authority in place of an argument. You said that was the same thing. Now I’m confused.
Well i have an advice, you wish to follow... That i had prepared a presentation on that topic that is much better.. But i couldn't have any channel to upload it.. or share with people.. I think you can explain it on your channel.. So that is pdf file if you'll give me your email ID i can share it with you... Cheers with knowledge!
This fallacy is almost always explained incorrectly. Appeal to authority is most commonly used to stifle debate because an experts has rendered a judgment and it assumes the expert, even making the judgement in their area of expertise, is correct. Obviously we seek expert opinion from people who practice what they comment on but that alone is not enough. The argument and evidence have to be unassailable and used to bolster the claim. Not the authority making it. People, including experts, are not void of using their authority for corrupt purposes.
ok thanks
heaven and hell exist according to a man who to lived 2000 years ago.
but why should we believe him?
well, the guy walked on water, can enter a locked room, fly in the air, drives away demons, turned water into wine, healed sick people, raise the dead, lived a perfect life, very humble, full of love, the smartest man ever lived, fulfilled a lot of prophecy and most of all resurrected 3 days after His death.
... and St. Augustine with all probability could have said what he said regarding heaven, hell, and the church because of the trust and confidence he owed to that one Authority of the Man-God, the Logos, who founded the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church whose fidelity to her founder's teachings, may had been what made Augustine's heart (and perhaps even his mind) restless.
What is the significance of being familiar and knowledgeable on the fallacies on logic ??
I think that's too obvious. It would be helpful on your part if you think it yourself. Best wishes!
Based on this thinking, appeal to authority leads me to engage with Arguments and evidence of the arguer not whether the authority is credible or not.
The video states that if the authority is not qualified in the subject or has bias in the subject, even if qualified, then appealing to really any authority leads to weak Inferences.
I'm led to Agnosticism on many issues, because I don't trust that I have beliefs based on Argument and Evidence but based on figures with bias or figures not qualified regardless of the neutrality or non-neutrality of the supposed authority figure.
thanks sergey
@@PHILOnotes totally
No. The "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy is based on the fact that the truth of an argument has absolutely nothing to do with the credentials of the person presenting it, expert or not. General Relativity is true, but not because Einstein says so. Did you actually study Logic?
This is not correct. Appeal to authority refers to suggesting we should just take someone's word on something because after all that person should know. The appeal to authority fallacy does not distinguish between good and bad authorities. It is obvious when a person is an unqualified authority, so that is not the issue. The fallacy is about relying upon expert opinion rather than presenting the data and facts. Relativity isn't true just because Einstein said it's true. Get it?
ok, thanks
Due to lockdown in our country, we were forced to take online classes.
And that were anything but helpful.
And teachers weren't that supportive either.
Thanks to your lectures I'm comprehending them well.
Best of luck with your videos 👍🏼
@Mahek Chauhan We're glad to hear that our video lectures are helping students understand key concepts in philosophy. :)
Is the following an appeal to authority fallacy: We should do "A" even though there may be negative consequences because we should follow science.
I ask because in this case an authority is not being explicitly referenced, rather the abstract term "science". The term here would refer to the current knowledge or understanding of a phenomenon. Because the knowledge is often incomplete, and the understanding is often wrong, that "science" if often wrong. To me that means the above would be an appeal to authority fallacy.
Yes, I completely agree. The term "science" is loosely referred to here. Anybody can make an appeal to science. We need to know first which scientific discipline and proof are being referred to. Thanks Bill.
@@PHILOnotes Thanks so much for answering!!
@@wahoodoss No worries, Bill. Thanks too for your interest in our videos. Cheers!
dunno if anyone gives a shit but if you're stoned like me during the covid times then you can watch all of the latest series on instaflixxer. Have been watching with my brother for the last few weeks =)
@Byron Ellis yup, I've been using InstaFlixxer for years myself :)
As far as I recall, it simply means that an argument can not rest solely on the claims of an authority / expert. One must eventually throw in some actual objective evidence to support the argument. And if there is no actual evidence, then the claims of an authority are more or less useless.
Everyone has experienced this over the last few years...
TL;DR: Neither trust, nor "authority," take the place of valid argument. Thus, teach the truth: it's a fallacy, but one that must be employed judiciously.
Proof via "authority" is a temporary stand-in until a valid argument can be found. This is some seriously concerning teaching right here. Deeply problematic.
1) Where does authority come from?
2) What happens when Authority P declares Authority Q to be false, and Q the same to P (an all too common occurrence)? Or are we supposing there is only one valid authority on a matter? (possibly even more concerning).
All appeals to authority are fallacies. However, totally mistrusting anyone and everyone (including ourselves) is neither healthy nor practical. Thus, we must lend a degree of trust if we are to function in society. In other words: we must, at times, be fallacious if we are to function equanimitably with others. Still, cognizance of the fact that neither trust, nor "authority," take the place of valid argument is of utmost importance. Thus, teach the truth: it's a fallacy, but one that must be employed judiciously.
I watched your video informal fallacy.. it is much better but i found it difficult to understand..
Maybe because of examples...
And all types of fallacy's are not explained..
Hi Mah Noor, we are still on the process of making the video for all other types of fallacies. it's just that we don't have enough time to do it. But I'm sure we will get there soon. Thank you so much, Man Noor. Best wishes!
@@PHILOnotes Ohh okay..
Thanks for your reply ❤
thanks too, @@topsyturvy7666
What happened to the other fallacies you out lined in your introductory video?
we are in the process of making them, Dr Faustens
Hi Dr Faustens, we were so busy in the past months. we just resumed with our video-making. Please check our new videos.
At 1:20 you completely contradict what you said previously. Appeal to authority applies to seeking the refuge of an expert to support your stand. It's not about whether the authority is qualified or not. Regardless of how knowledgeable a person may be, he or she may still be wrong.
Is it true that “an appeal isn’t an argument?”
@eclipsewrecker Appeal in this context is difficult to define in words. I can only use examples. I might try to get you to change your mind by appealing to your feeling of pity or racial bias...or your regard for authority... any of which would be logical fallacy. Only sound reason and facts are valid.
@@marksesl exactly. An appeal is not an argument. An appeal is a referral or an attempt to dishonestly manipulate. How I’ve always understood the difference is with the “math problem” explanation.
If two people are debating the answer to ‘2+2:’ the one who explains how it’s 4 has made an argument, and the one who refers to the math book’s answer key has appealed to authority.
Anything I missed?
@eclipsewrecker What you are missing is that that kind of book is considered fact. It's not about listing opinions. Any other book would agree. There is nothing to debate.
Appeal used as a fallacy is kind of like pander or cajole. You pander to a woman's sense of vanity to manipulate her.
@@marksesl 1) what an authority states has little to do with an attempted argument, outside of an argument about what that authority states.
2) what is printed in a book is not a scientific fact by being printed in a book. What makes 2+2=4 the fact is that it can be explained and that we get the same answer every time we do the experiment/equation. 2+2=4 is short hand.
3) there are many printing errors that have been found, even in books of authority.
…Therefore, the book is a reference and not an argument. It is an appeal and not the “why” or the “how.”
That’s the way I understand it. This of course is within the context of making an argument. It’s logical and reasonable to use authorities in many ways, but it’s not an argument.
“Show your work.”
I think you described the appeal to false authority.
they are exactly the same.
@@PHILOnotes oh. So what is the name of the fallacy when someone uses an authority instead of an actual argument?
@@eclipsewrecker "Appeal to Authority". That's the name of the fallacy
@@PHILOnotes okay you just got me to watch your video again...
You state:
“The fallacy of appeal to authority occurs when the authority cited is not qualified in the relevant matters, or is not free from adverse influences.”
As I understand it that is the appeal to false authority, but I conceded to you in your comment section. Then, I asked what the term/fallacy was for the use of an authority in place of an argument. You said that was the same thing.
Now I’m confused.
@@eclipsewrecker that's it, eclipsewrecker. Cheers!
your voice is like Ruth from Ozark season
oh really. thanks
Aka technocracy
hmmm...yeah
Well i have an advice, you wish to follow...
That i had prepared a presentation on that topic that is much better..
But i couldn't have any channel to upload it.. or share with people..
I think you can explain it on your channel..
So that is pdf file if you'll give me your email ID i can share it with you...
Cheers with knowledge!
Oh, that's very kind of you, Man Noor. Please send it to philonotes.jeff@gmail.com. Thank you so much. Cheers!
@@PHILOnotes My pleasure 😍😊