Is Appeal to Authority Ever Acceptable?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I've been noticing an increasing number of people saying that an appeal to authority argument isn't fallacious if said person is actually knowledgable in the subject matter. This doesn't make sense to me.

Person says x is true
Person is very knowledgable in field that x is in
Therefore, x is true.

What?

[The Grand Nudger]

Try.

Person says x is true

Person is knowledgeable in the field of x.

Person demonstrates the veracity of statement x within their field.



The first two bits are just introduction. It's the third bit that counts.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Try.

Person says x is true

Person is knowledgeable in the field of x.

Person demonstrates the veracity of statement x within their field.



The first two bits are just introduction. It's the third bit that counts.

Well, that would make a difference I guess. I rarely see that third bit though when I hear from people that their use of appeal to authority is special.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I've been noticing an increasing number of people saying that an appeal to authority argument isn't fallacious if said person is actually knowledgable in the subject matter. This doesn't make sense to me.

Person says x is true
Person is very knowledgable in field that x is in
Therefore, x is true.

What?

Well, this isn't really a matter of logic, when it comes to facts.
If the person is knowledgable in field X, he also must have certain facts to support him, yes?

[Tiberius]

I take issue with the conclusion that "x is true". We are talking about people here, and people can be fallible.

Wikipedia lists a better form:

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.

In essence, an argument from authority is always fallacious if you use it to conclude that something must be true. Wikipedia handles this one nicely as well:

...because the argument is inductive (which in this sense implies that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true. Such an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[The Grand Nudger]

No, not necessarily Mehm. "Well educated" people are as capable of being incorrect as the completely uneducated.............

(that's ignoring those "experts" in fields in which there is little or nothing in the way of "fact" to begin with)

[Minimalist]

Depends on the "authority" Tea.

For example, when Neil De Grasse Tyson discusses the Big Bang he has a degree of credibility as he has spent a large part of his life studying the evidence for it.


When Ken Ham talks discusses it he can safely be dismissed as he has wasted a large part of his life reading the fucking bible.


This does not stop creationist fucktards from quoting Ham but what do you expect from the likes of them?

[simplexity]

Today if someone states something without evidence we can always go look it up for ourselves later to make sure it's correct. Straight appeal to authority is never enough unless the person stating it values evidence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

As a practical matter, if two people accept the credibility of a particular expert then they could allow the expert's opinion to settle the matter. For example if you and I disagree on the meaning of a word, we can both look to a dictionary to see who's right. Even still that doesn't prove that the expert or source is correct. Experts disagree all the time and sometimes a maverick proves to be right many years after the fact.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I've been noticing an increasing number of people saying that an appeal to authority argument isn't fallacious if said person is actually knowledgable in the subject matter. This doesn't make sense to me.

It makes complete sense to me.

Say some one appeals to the authority of, ooooooooooooooooh I dunno... a theologian - then we're talking about an "expert" in made up shit. Therefore, appealing to that authority gains zero credibility unless that authority can back up their "wisdom" with hard facts and evidence.

Whereas if you are a layman debating, say, a legal matter with another layman, then appealing to the authority of a solicitor would gain some weight to an argument, as you'd presume the solicitor would have some expertise in said field - which of course is based on factual information as well.