Appeal to authority fallacy

[petesampras]

The page http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... logic.html has this to say about appeals to authority....

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

Now in any field there may well be experts with controvesial opinions, if they are speaking about their field how does one deal with an appeal to their authority in an argument?

Of course you can name opposing experts, but that just leads to a stalemate.

My intuition is that an argument based on facts and logic cannot be over-ridden by an appeal to a authority, but I don't know what type of fallacy this would be - if it is one. Without going into a big debate into facts/logic versus expert opinion everytime this arises, is there any way to deal with a quoting of a relevant expert opinion in refutation to an argument based on facts and logic?

[Admiral Valdemar]

That only holds if the appeal to such an authority figure includes facts and logic also. If I appealed to Dr. Behe as being correct on evolution, something easily done when considering his credentials regardless of the sub-field of biology he is knowledgeable of, I could be struck down in debate by another person bringing a similar authority with sound reasoning. Or more people could be cited, given science, at least, is based on overarching opinion, ergo, peer-review is the sum of those opinions and that is why global warming is accepted despite the few climatologists who happen to discredit it.

Ulterior motive bias is also one to use, given such people like Dr. Behe and Dr. Ball fail to win over their kin in the evolutionary and climatological fields.

[Darth Wong]

The Appeal to Authority fallacy is a matter of formulation. If you say "Proposition X must be true because Dr. Genius says so", that is an appeal to authority fallacy, even if Dr. Genius is a valid authority. That's because no human being is infallible.

However, the Appeal to Authority is a valid way of putting the burden of proof on the other side. For example, if someone says "I don't think that's true" and someone else says "every major scientific body says it's true", this doesn't necessarily prove it, but it does place the onus on the other side to come up with some compelling facts and arguments rather than simply stating its own disbelief. Or to put it another way, if neither side in an argument has any hard facts to back up its point of view, the side with better support from recognized authorities has a stronger argument simply by virtue of the fact that those authorities have presumably studied the subject. They may not be infallible, but the side without support from the authorities has even less, so you could say that the side with support from the authorities is much more likely to be correct.

The Appeal to Authority is also often used to evaluate the credibility of facts, which are separate from arguments. So if someone says "The Earth is 6000 km wide" and you retort "No it isn't, <insert name of textbook here> says it's more than 12000km wide", that sounds like an Appeal to Authority fallacy but we're not talking about competing logical arguments here; we are talking about information, and the authority in question has better access to the sources of information. It's no different from appealing to personal experience. For example, "There's no way you can wear a T-shirt and a leather jacket and be sweating in -15 degree temperatures" could be refuted by "Well I've done it myself while shoveling snow, so you're obviously wrong". In that case, it looks like you are appealing to your own authority but you are actually stating an observation that you have personally made. And if you follow it up with "What the fuck do you know about cold weather anyway, you live in Arizona", that might look like an ad-hominem attack but it's a valid reference to the fact that he has no direct knowledge of the situation he's describing.

[petesampras]

The Appeal to Authority fallacy is a matter of formulation. If you say "Proposition X must be true because Dr. Genius says so", that is an appeal to authority fallacy, even if Dr. Genius is a valid authority. That's because no human being is infallible.

I can see this from a rational perspective, the trouble is, to me, how it would play out in some sort of debate. Someone claims that X must be true because Dr. Genius says so. I claim that that is an appeal to authority fallacy. They can then refer me to the accepted definitions of the appeal to authority fallacy, which if Dr. Genius is an expert in the relevant field, means that it won't hold.

Clearly assuming something is true because some expert says so and that quells any further debate with facts and logic is some sort of fallacy. My problem is that whilst it is a fallacy that is based on an appeal to authority, all the definitions I find of the appeal to authority fallacy don't include it. Thus claiming an appeal to authority fallacy leaves you open to attack from accepted definitions of the appeal to authority fallacy.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Again, that depends on the background of this Dr. Genius and whether he is a lone wolf on the matter, or has a proven track record of consistent good practice in his area of expertise and has good backing to boot. If he is simply a voice of dissent where you can cite dozens of other experts in the same field disputing his claims, then that would be enough to put the ball back in the court of your opponent and have him bring more substantial evidence to the table than one dubious source. Of course, you could then be called on an Appeal to Popularity if you're not careful, something that can be brought up with regards to science at least if only because major acceptance of a theory is the basis for it being seen as truth, regardless of those rare times when a prodigy has turned the world upside down like Darwin or Einstein.

Additionally, it would help to explain why your source/s are in conflict with your opponents. If you simply rely on their saying so, then that shows you up as being too accepting on blind faith. If you can adequately elaborate on their position and how they came to such a conclusion, then you further assist your own argument in a logical and scientific manner, thus negating the simple fallacies put before you and opening the debate to the discussion of the salient points and not whether one authority figure is correct or not via credentials.

[Justforfun000]

Additionally, it would help to explain why your sources are in conflict with your opponents. If you simply rely on their saying so, then that shows you up as being too accepting on blind faith. If you can adequately elaborate on their position and how they came to such a conclusion, then you further assist your own argument in a logical and scientific manner, thus negating the simple fallacies put before you and opening the debate to the discussion of the salient points and not whether one authority figure is correct or not via credentials.

This is an extremely good point, and also why in most cases debates should be left to the big boys. A skilled debater should actually understand the material he is presenting, and have no need of pointing to an authority figure as an example of credibility. If you can lay out the facts yourself and show very clearly how they contradict the other side being presented, this in itself is enough to win the battle.

The problem is these pricks jump all over hell and creation poking holes in you like a swiss cheese so that you end up being constantly on the defensive and vainly trying to give a comprehensive answer that truly refutes a well placed barb. It's maddening because they know the short, sweet, but still INACCURATE pot shots go over best.

[Darth Wong]

The Appeal to Authority fallacy is a matter of formulation. If you say "Proposition X must be true because Dr. Genius says so", that is an appeal to authority fallacy, even if Dr. Genius is a valid authority. That's because no human being is infallible.

I can see this from a rational perspective, the trouble is, to me, how it would play out in some sort of debate. Someone claims that X must be true because Dr. Genius says so. I claim that that is an appeal to authority fallacy. They can then refer me to the accepted definitions of the appeal to authority fallacy, which if Dr. Genius is an expert in the relevant field, means that it won't hold.

When someone uses this argument, use the Einstein rebuttal. Put simply, Einstein totally fucked up on quantum mechanics. He was dead wrong about the field, despite being a genius and a recognized authority in physics. You can't just say that someone is a genius or even an authority and expect that to singlehandedly refute all opposition claims.

Clearly assuming something is true because some expert says so and that quells any further debate with facts and logic is some sort of fallacy. My problem is that whilst it is a fallacy that is based on an appeal to authority, all the definitions I find of the appeal to authority fallacy don't include it. Thus claiming an appeal to authority fallacy leaves you open to attack from accepted definitions of the appeal to authority fallacy.

The most comprehensive form of the Appeal to Authority fallacy rejects any argument that does not include complete reasoning from facts, hence even the best authorities can't be cited. There is, however, a weaker form of the Appeal to Authority fallacy that only bars the use of irrelevant or false authorities. This is the most common form because the most comprehensive form makes many forms of debate (particularly scientific debate) virtually unworkable. Imagine if you have to back up virtually everything you say by going from first principles and referenced data, even simple things like "The Sun runs on nuclear fusion". You would never get anywhere.

PS. If you are confronted with a "lone wolf against the establishment" appeal to authority, you can always use the "last in class" argument. To wit:

"In every graduating physics, biology, or medical class, there was always one guy who finished dead last. What makes you think that your lone wolf dissenter was not that one guy?"

It may not be all that logical either, but let's face it, when you have one of these "conspiracy of silence to suppress the lone dissenter" idiots, his argument isn't based on logic either. He's going for the appeal to emotion, and the "X-Files" conspiracy theorist mindset. You can either point that out, or you can play games with him.