There’s a difference between an authority figure and someone with expertise in a subject.
By “authority” it means “authority on the subject”. A well known and respected physicist would be an authority on the subject or in the field of physics. The issue necessarily isn’t the lack of expertise but that the expertise shouldn’t be trusted blindly but rather the findings or argument should be verified.
Not that trusting the authorities on the subject is a bad idea especially when you are yourself not an expert. It’s more of a thing when trying to study something, figuring out proof of stuff and so on when you need to be aware of the potential issues.
I always thought that it meant: just because someone has authority over one subject, doesn’t mean they have it for another. Just because Einstein is good at math and physics doesn’t mean his quotes about philosophy and religion hold any authority.
No, it is just about the authority being used as the proof. It can be someone who is an expert on the subject (or not). See the example used in the Wikipedia article:
One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[31] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[32][33] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[34] scientists propagated this “fact” based on Painter’s authority,[35][36][33] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.
Einstein is an expert at math and physics but him being an expert doesn’t make something true in itself and we shouldn’t trust the claims etc. just because of his status. But if he makes a claim, it for sure has more merit than claim from someone not as authoritative on the subject.
argument from authority, also known as an appeal to authority, is a reasoning technique that uses a person’s authority to support an argument, rather than their ideas. It can be a valid argument when the authority is an expert on the topic and their opinion is likely true. However, it can also be a logical fallacy if the authority is not qualified or the argument is unclear.
It can be a valid argument when the authority is an expert on the topic and their opinion is likely true.
I believe you are conflating authority with expertise. Authority means you have a position of influence over a body of people or knowledge. It doesn’t mean that you are automatically an expert or have real knowledge of the subject.
For something to be a logical fallacy it has to be irrational. Having someone quote their expertise in a subject doesn’t mean they are appealing to authority, they’re just aiding the body of evidence that supports their theory.
I think you are thinking about claims in the terms of the scientific process, which deals with physical sciences. When you should be interpreting this as a metaphysical debate or even a legal process, where the subject is based on interpretations stemming from social constructs.
Logical fallacies can be present in the physical sciences, but the scientific process is meant to minimize this. The problem with treating metaphysical things like interpreting political beliefs with the rigor of the scientific process is that it invalidates nuance and leads to things like Verificationism. Which is a theory of logical positivism that rejects all metaphysical beliefs including things like ethics.
I don’t know if you’ve read the Wikipedia article but their specific example is of someone who had authority in the field because of their expertise. It’s the expertise that gave them authority.
One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[31] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[32][33] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[34] scientists propagated this “fact” based on Painter’s authority,[35][36][33] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[32][37] Even textbooks[32] with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[37] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[38]
Authoritative person said it was so, people deferred to his expertise over findings arguing differently because they trusted his expertise on the subject.
For something to be a logical fallacy it has to be irrational. Having someone quote their expertise in a subject doesn’t mean they are appealing to authority, they’re just aiding the body of evidence that supports their theory.
It’s a fallacy when you use their expertise as the proof of something. Something is not true in the argumentative sense because someone is an expert, but of course in the real world if someone is an expert they know their shit better than most.
Authoritative person said it was so, people deferred to his expertise over findings arguing differently because they trusted his expertise on the subject.
Again, you are talking about physical sciences where the rigor of claims must first pass the scientific method. Personal testimony has no grounds within physical sciences, so the claim is irrational.
In physical sciences expert testimony does not add to the body of evidence, because testimony does not affect the observation of a physical phenomenon.
However, in metaphysical processes testimony is considered evidence, as it can shape the way people perceive the argument. In this case evidence isn’t absolute proof a physical phenomenon, it’s a bit of information that supports your assertion.
We are talking about a metaphysical problem where things like personal testimony are considered a rational argument.
Is it irrational for a court of law to call upon an expert witness? Or should all personal testimony be labeled as an irrational logical fallacy?
It’s a fallacy when you use their expertise as the proof of something. Something is not true in the argumentative sense because someone is an expert, but of course in the real world if someone is an expert they know their shit better than most.
No, it really isn’t. A fallacy is defined by a failure of rationality or reasoning. At what point is an expert on Nazis interpreting something as a Nazi salute a failure of reasoning?
Utilizing your interpretation, how would someone define a Nazi salute? Is there a scientific formula to determine if someone is a Nazi? Or would you have to study Nazis and their beliefs and use that information to make an educated determination?
In this case I would say you’d have to have an expert’s opinion. So stating you are an expert and giving your opinion is a perfectly logical and rational argument.
I was just explaining how the authority can be someone with genuine expertise. It’s just that it can be fallacious to consider something true based on just that authority.
No, it really isn’t. A fallacy is defined by a failure of rationality or reasoning.
I doubt we’ll find a solution to whether it is or isn’t, it seems to be a highly contentious topic
While all sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, and therefore, obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible, there is disagreement on the general extent to which it is fallible - historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources.
By “authority” it means “authority on the subject”. A well known and respected physicist would be an authority on the subject or in the field of physics. The issue necessarily isn’t the lack of expertise but that the expertise shouldn’t be trusted blindly but rather the findings or argument should be verified.
Not that trusting the authorities on the subject is a bad idea especially when you are yourself not an expert. It’s more of a thing when trying to study something, figuring out proof of stuff and so on when you need to be aware of the potential issues.
I always thought that it meant: just because someone has authority over one subject, doesn’t mean they have it for another. Just because Einstein is good at math and physics doesn’t mean his quotes about philosophy and religion hold any authority.
No, it is just about the authority being used as the proof. It can be someone who is an expert on the subject (or not). See the example used in the Wikipedia article:
Einstein is an expert at math and physics but him being an expert doesn’t make something true in itself and we shouldn’t trust the claims etc. just because of his status. But if he makes a claim, it for sure has more merit than claim from someone not as authoritative on the subject.
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing.
I believe you are conflating authority with expertise. Authority means you have a position of influence over a body of people or knowledge. It doesn’t mean that you are automatically an expert or have real knowledge of the subject.
For something to be a logical fallacy it has to be irrational. Having someone quote their expertise in a subject doesn’t mean they are appealing to authority, they’re just aiding the body of evidence that supports their theory.
I think you are thinking about claims in the terms of the scientific process, which deals with physical sciences. When you should be interpreting this as a metaphysical debate or even a legal process, where the subject is based on interpretations stemming from social constructs.
Logical fallacies can be present in the physical sciences, but the scientific process is meant to minimize this. The problem with treating metaphysical things like interpreting political beliefs with the rigor of the scientific process is that it invalidates nuance and leads to things like Verificationism. Which is a theory of logical positivism that rejects all metaphysical beliefs including things like ethics.
I don’t know if you’ve read the Wikipedia article but their specific example is of someone who had authority in the field because of their expertise. It’s the expertise that gave them authority.
Authoritative person said it was so, people deferred to his expertise over findings arguing differently because they trusted his expertise on the subject.
It’s a fallacy when you use their expertise as the proof of something. Something is not true in the argumentative sense because someone is an expert, but of course in the real world if someone is an expert they know their shit better than most.
Again, you are talking about physical sciences where the rigor of claims must first pass the scientific method. Personal testimony has no grounds within physical sciences, so the claim is irrational.
In physical sciences expert testimony does not add to the body of evidence, because testimony does not affect the observation of a physical phenomenon.
However, in metaphysical processes testimony is considered evidence, as it can shape the way people perceive the argument. In this case evidence isn’t absolute proof a physical phenomenon, it’s a bit of information that supports your assertion.
We are talking about a metaphysical problem where things like personal testimony are considered a rational argument.
Is it irrational for a court of law to call upon an expert witness? Or should all personal testimony be labeled as an irrational logical fallacy?
No, it really isn’t. A fallacy is defined by a failure of rationality or reasoning. At what point is an expert on Nazis interpreting something as a Nazi salute a failure of reasoning?
Utilizing your interpretation, how would someone define a Nazi salute? Is there a scientific formula to determine if someone is a Nazi? Or would you have to study Nazis and their beliefs and use that information to make an educated determination?
In this case I would say you’d have to have an expert’s opinion. So stating you are an expert and giving your opinion is a perfectly logical and rational argument.
I was just explaining how the authority can be someone with genuine expertise. It’s just that it can be fallacious to consider something true based on just that authority.
I doubt we’ll find a solution to whether it is or isn’t, it seems to be a highly contentious topic