Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority,
Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority,
Ad Verecundiam
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a
legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not
qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will
be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is
not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact
that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any
justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that
an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational
reason to accept the claim as true.
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim
as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More
specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously
believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and
hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a
tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to
accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common
one.
Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is
not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to
provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following
standards are widely accepted:
Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to
make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In
contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise
will be supported by the person's reliability in the area.
Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of
expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as
philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education,
academic performance, publications, membership in professional
societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable
indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards
will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable
claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the ability to tie the
shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted
that being an expert does not always require having a university degree.
Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects
without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be
simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.
Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of
great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in
certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special
gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as
establishing the person's expertise while others often see these
self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other
situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is
needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a
fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line
of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.
If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s)
of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence,
the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise
and is not reliable.
It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of
human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be
an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in
respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have
little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject
area a claim falls under.
It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not
automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert
physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or
politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally
ignored. In fact, a great deal of advertising rests on a violation of
this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely
common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that
they are not qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great
actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or
shaving or underwear or diets or politics.
If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the
experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to
Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any
claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a
counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert.
In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such
cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual
issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke
experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to
Authority.
There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of
legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed
field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many
plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of
this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the
key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the
exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well
known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been
demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that
will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand
trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify,
under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand
trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a
situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would
be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the
conclusion.
It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement,
so some degree of dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of
course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to keep in mind
that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain
areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority
could be legitimate.
If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within
his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be
reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be
fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the
claim.
Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If
there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would
affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority
based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is
actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument.
This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might
not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his
expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is
being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.
It is important to remember that no person is completely objective.
At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views
(otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some
degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not
significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to
dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many
people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco
companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other
people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain
objective.
Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no
legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims
made in such areas will not be very reliable.
What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult
to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. For
example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called
"chromabullet therapy" and asserted that firing painted rifle
bullets at a person would cure cancer it would not be very reasonable to
accept his claim based on his "expertise." After all, his
expertise is in an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The
general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have
mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.
As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be
difficult. In European history, various scientists had to struggle with
the Church and established traditions to establish the validity of their
discliplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle
in getting the legitimacy of their area accepted.
A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that
they are certified "master psychics" and that they are
actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of
being certified "master psychics" are simply absurd since
there is no real content to such an area of expertise. If these people
are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these "master
psychics" as true are victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.
A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an
Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is also known as an Appeal
to an Unidentified Authority.
This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true
because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not
actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or
identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert.
Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there
is no reason to accept the claim.
This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making
the argument will say things like "I have a book that
says...", or "they say...", or "the experts
say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read
in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar
statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s)
will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and
believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply
because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good
reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.
As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This
is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no
one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the
time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.
In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For
example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him
that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the
doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is
acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is
probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.
What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good
Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions
discussed above.
In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim
because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who
is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making
considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is
being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has
tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has
found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being
true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of
the expert.
It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an
exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being
accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true.
The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on
the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does
not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence,
arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself
will tend to be stronger.
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a woman should have a right to her own body."
Kintaro: "I don't see how you can consider Stalin to be a great leader. He killed millions of his own people, he crippled the Soviet economy, kept most of the people in fear and laid the foundations for the violence that is occuring in much of Eastern Europe."
Sasha: "I played the lottery today and I know I am going to win something."
[
Previous
|
Index
|
Next
]
Description of Appeal to Authority
Examples of Appeal to Authority
Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Johan Skarn says that abortion is always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right, after all, he is a respected expert in his field."
Bill: "I've never heard of Dr. Skarn. Who is he?"
Jane: "He's the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on cold fusion."
Bill: "I see. Does he have any expertise in morality or ethics?"
Jane: "I don't know. But he's a world famous expert, so I believe him."
Dave: "Yeah, well you say that. However, I have a book at home that says that Stalin was acting in the best interest of the people. The millions that were killed were vicious enemies of the state and they had to be killed to protect the rest of the peaceful citizens. This book lays it all out, so it has to be true."
Siphwe: "What did you do, rig the outcome?"
Sasha: "No, silly. I called my Super Psychic Buddy at the 1-900-MindPower number. After consulting his magic Californian Tarot deck, he told me my lucky numbers."
Siphwe: "And you believed him?"
Sasha: "Certainly, he is a certified Californian Master-Mind Psychic. That is why I believe what he has to say. I mean, like, who else would know what my lucky numbers are?"