(February 13, 2019 at 9:05 am)Belaqua Wrote:(February 13, 2019 at 8:30 am)Brian37 Wrote: The ancient Egyptians, Romans and Greeks also had religious leaders, and again, appeal to their authority would also be a fallacy.
But when it comes to facts like evolution and big bang, appealing to the long term observations that confirm those facts, that is not a fallacy.
If trusting in authority is sometimes OK and sometimes not, then trusting in authority is not a logical fallacy.
It may well be a mistake to trust certain people, but it's not a fallacy.
Strictly speaking, the statement "Einstein said it therefore it's true" is a logical fallacy. The statement "Einstein said it therefore I have confidence in it" is not. As I said before, the practical problem comes when we decide whose statements we have confidence in. "Donald Trump said it therefore I have confidence in it" is not a logical fallacy, but it is a mistake.
More appropriately, we have to be sure that those who we think are authorities are, in fact, authorities in the subject at hand. At the very least, that means they have access to the information on which they are claimed to be authorities and there is a way they can verify the information. We also have to make sure their authority is relevant to the statements made.
So, for example, if Einstein claimed to be an authority on ancient Egyptian history, we would reasonably doubt that claim unless he could present some evidence of his knowledge of such. In contrast, it is well-known that he was an authority for physics. But we also know that authority expires. So Einstein, even in physics, would not be an authority in any discoveries made since his death.
On the other side, we can reasonably ask whether *anyone* can be an authority in theology. Yes, it is quite possible to be an authority in what people in the past have thought about theology, But does anyone have testable access to any deity to justify their claims to knowledge? And, even if they did, how could anyone else verify such? So, it is reasonable to deny any appeals to authority about the nature of God simply because anyone claiming authority is clearly lying.
So, one of the questions to be asked about any 'authority' is whether it is even *possible* to be an authority in the subject they claim.
Next, it is reasonable to ask whether there is more than one opinion among authorities in a subject or whether there is consensus among those who have studied a subject. So, it is reasonable to accept the consensus among research biologists that evolution is true but still not accept the opinions of a biologist that says all species change is due to genetic drift. The former position is non-controversial among those who have studied the area, while the latter is, at least, a matter of discussion.
