Argument from Authority
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
'Argument from Authority is an informal logical fallacy, formally known as argumentum ad verecundium, where an participant argues that a belief is correct because the person making the argument is an authority. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:
- Person A claims that P
- Person A is a respected scientist or other authority
- Therefore, P is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant.
[edit] Example
Example 1:
- Protagonist: There's nothing necessarily immoral about atheism.
- Antagonist: Well, my parents said that there is, and they wouldn't lie to me, so you must be wrong.
Example 2:
- Antagonist: That actor who plays a doctor on TV just recommended this particular medicine. It must be effective!
Example 3:
- Antagonist: Aristotle said that heavier objects fall faster than light objects. Therefore it must be true!
Example 4:
- Antagonist: The Prime Minister said that it's easily possible to live on a minimum wage job, so we don't need to raise the minimum wage.
Example 5:
- Antagonist: The JREF Wiki said that argument from authority is a fallacy. They wouldn't have said it if it weren't true!
[edit] Discussion
In general, a rational person will treat the opinion of acknowledged experts with a certain degree of respect. However, in many cases, the opinions presented as expert are nothing of the sort. For example, an actor, even one who plays a doctor, is not typically an expert on medicine and has no special knowledge about the effectiveness of medicines. In order to be an authority, a person must usually have special knowledge, training, or experience, not merely glamour, prestige, and fame.
Even the opinions of genuine experts may sometimes not be useful. Expertise in one area does not necessarily transfer (Einstein was a genius at physics, but few would want to take advice on fashion and hair styling from him), nor are the quotes attributed to experts necessarily correct (see argument from quotation). Experts can also have vested interests (the opinion of a particular car company about which car is the most reliable may not be correct, although the opinion of an independent mechanic on the same topic would be very relevant). Finally, in many cases, especially regarding new developments or complex questions, experts can genuinely disagree among themselves, and the opinion of a single expert represents no more than a personal opinion.
One must also not neglect the possibility that an individual expert, or even a group of them, are simply wrong.
Argument by authority is actually a subcategory of the more general genetic fallacy, where the truth or falsity of a proposition is judged by the characteristics of the person stating it. Other examples of such a fallacy include argumentum ad hominem and argument from popularity.
[edit] Exceptions to the Rule
Argument by authority can sometimes be both appropriate and relevant, if the authority is in a position to offer an expert opinion on the question at hand. For example, a person who has lived on minimum wage jobs would know from personal experience whether or not it needed to be raised, in a way that the more affluent might not. On the other hand, a genuine expert might be swayed by personal interest into shading the truth or even outright lying, and pointing this out, although possibly an example of poisoning the well, is rational and appropriate. Argument from authority thus shades into argumentum ad hominem in allowing personal characteristics to affect our assessment of the truth or falsity of a statement.
