Appeal to authority

[edit] Americola's celebrity biographies are provided by AmericolaWiki, a celebrity wiki. You can help contribute to Americola and edit this article.

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable.

On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is plausible: it is likely true, we just don't know for sure, because authority alone is not a proof.

1 Forms
- 1.1 Appeal to authority as logical fallacy
- 1.2 Appeal to authority as sound logical conclusion
2 Examples of appeals to authority
3 Discussion
4 See also

Forms

There are exceptions to the idea that appeal to authority is a fallacy, however. There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. The only case in which an appeal to authority definitely proves the claim to be factual is when the authority cited is an absolute authority.

The first form of the appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not a known expert on dental hygiene. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements and sponsorships.

The second form, citing a person who actually is an authority in the relevant field, carries more weight in that the authority is more likely to be correct. However, the possibility of a mistake may remain, but only if that authority happens to be a relative authority, and not an absolute one. In cases where the authority cited is absolute, the credibility of that authority is also absolute, and therefore the claim must be accepted as factual. Any authority who makes the claim that no authority is definitely correct must concede that he himself may also be incorrect. Therefore, the claim that, "absolute authority does not exist" is, in itself, a logical fallacy.

Appeal to authority as logical fallacy

A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

A makes claim B;
there is something positive about A,
therefore claim B is true.

Appeal to authority as sound logical conclusion

An appeal to absolute authority has the basic form:

A makes claim B;
A is never incorrect, mistaken, in illusion, or dishonest,
therefore claim B is true.

An appeal to authority may or may not be a logical fallacy, depending on the authority cited: some authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields, while others can not; therefore referencing authority may or may not automatically imply truth. Some authorities are absolute, and therefore are exceptions to the (fallacious) claim that all appeals to authority are fallacious. After all, the very claim that "all appeals to authority are fallacious" is, in and of itself, an appeal to authority. The authority may be honestly cited, or the authority may be dishonestly hidden from the argument, but an authority must be there. If the person making the statement does not cite someone else, then the implied "authority" must necessarily be the very person making the claim.

Examples of appeals to authority

Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle. "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so."
Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Einstein. "If Einstein said it was so, it is so."
Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Jesus, Muhammad, or any other religious figure. "If (religious figure) said it was so, it is so." Such an appeal may be based upon the belief that the speaker in question is holy and, by extension, inerrant. It also may be based on factual evidence of the inerrancy of the speaker.
Referring to a sacred text. "If (the text) said it was so, it is so." Such an appeal may be based upon the belief that the sacred text in question is inerrant. It also may be based on factual evidence of the inerrancy of the text.
Referring to scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal. "Science (in the form of an article in a prestigious journal) says X, therefore X is so."
Referring to what one is told by one's teacher and/or parent. "My teacher said so, therefore it must be so."
Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession, as in "This doctor recommends (brand-name) aspirin" or "Bankers recommend that people have six months' wages in a savings account".
Something must be true because a war hero says it.
Something must be true because an elected official says it.
Something must be true because it is in the news.
Something must be true because there is a scientific consensus.
Something must be true because it is in a textbook.
Something must be true because it is in an encyclopedia.
Something must be true because it is in wikipedia. (This page you are reading contains both relative and absolute truths. All relative truths must be discarded whenever they are observed to contradict absolute truths).

Discussion

Among the most respected of ancient Greek philosophers was Pythagoras, whose disciples were known for their custom of justifying their assertions by reference to the bald assertions of their master: αὐτὸς έφη (autos ephe), or "he himself hath said it." This well-known practice was carried on by later philosophers and ecclesiastics. Because of the influence of scholasticism, the expression is commonly known in its Latin translation, ipse dixit.

In the Middle Ages, roughly from the 12th century to the 15th century, the philosophy of Aristotle became firmly established dogma, and using the beliefs of Aristotle was an important part of many debates. Aristotle's thought became so central to the philosophy of the late Middle Ages that he became known in Latin as Ille Philosophus, "the philosopher," and quotations from Aristotle became known as ipse dixits ("He, himself, has spoken."). In this case, Aristotle is an example of someone who is an authority in philosophy, but philosophy is an area where direct evidence is less readily available, and therefore, Aristotle's ideas carry weight, but are not the final word. On the other hand, arguing that all astronomers believe that the planet Neptune exists - and therefore, that serves as evidence of the planet's existence - is a more compelling argument because astronomers are knowledgeable in the relevant field and are in a position to readily prove or disprove the existence of the planet (direct experience). However, it is still better to argue from evidence than from what astronomers believe.

Authoritarian ethics is the meta-ethical theory by which one attains ethical knowledge from an authority, for example from a God or from the law (see Divine command theory). The bandwagon fallacy can be viewed as a special case of an appeal to authority, where the authority is public opinion.

The infamous 'Because I said so' argument much stated by parents and loathed by children is not, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy of this type, though it is an invocation of authority. It depends upon the theory of child as a insufficiently competent judge of actions, and it invokes the moral theory that the child owes obedience to its parents (and by extension, those acting as their agents-- see in loco parentis). The child in turn is implying (by questioning) an obligation on the part of the parents to justify their decisions. Within this framework, the child's assumption of authority to call into question parental decisions cannot be justified. The framework is imperfect, as children are not utterly incompetent in reality, and parental decisions are sometimes malign; nonetheless, the issue is over obedience, not validity of moral reasoning.