AF Hall of Fallacies

[Jackalope]

Argument from authority.

Dang! You beat me to it! Although an argument from authority is not always fallacious, depending on the credentials of the authorty.

More correctly, depending on the reasoning of said authority. Authorities with quality credentials can still have lousy reasoning.

[Violet]

And even worse definitions...

[Statler Waldorf]

More correctly, depending on the reasoning of said authority. Authorities with quality credentials can still have lousy reasoning.

That’s not always the case, for example if the argument is concerning the verdict in a trial and someone makes an appeal to the jury's ruling, that’s not a fallacious appeal to authority because the jury has the proper authority or credentials to be the one determining the verdict of the trial. Another example is if the argument is concerning something like Newtonian motion and someone makes an appeal to the authority of Newton, that’s not a fallacious appeal to authority because Newton has the proper credentials (the developer of the theory) to be an appropriate authority on his own theory. The validity of an appeal to authority can get mirky rather quickly.

[Jackalope]

More correctly, depending on the reasoning of said authority. Authorities with quality credentials can still have lousy reasoning.

That’s not always the case, for example if the argument is concerning the verdict in a trial and someone makes an appeal to the jury's ruling, that’s not a fallacious appeal to authority because the jury has the proper authority or credentials to be the one determining the verdict of the trial. Another example is if the argument is concerning something like Newtonian motion and someone makes an appeal to the authority of Newton, that’s not a fallacious appeal to authority because Newton has the proper credentials (the developer of the theory) to be an appropriate authority on his own theory. The validity of an appeal to authority can get mirky rather quickly.

True enough.

[One Above All]

Argument from authority (or argumentum ad verecundiam for those who prefer the Latin naming of fallacies) is only a fallacy when the authority is not an authority on the subject at hand, like, say, a preacher and physics.

[Violet]

Argument from authority (or argumentum ad verecundiam for those who prefer the Latin naming of fallacies) is only a fallacy when the authority is not an authority on the subject at hand, like, say, a preacher and physics.

Okay... Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate any authority is in what they say on any subject: their saying X is so does not make X so. The argument IS EQUALLY VALID (by logic) to an identical argument made by ANYONE else. That is to say: the position of any person has no bearing upon an argument they make being sound or not, valid or not...

Every argument from authority (X because Y is qualified/an authority on Z) is a logical fallacy, because it's logically invalid (the argument is irrelevant to logic).

You would be better served to simply make the argument, absent any authority. Then it can't be flatly denied for being an argument from authority, and will be judged on the content of the argument alone

* Violet serves worthless forum denizens yet again. She bets that they don't understand it anyway.

Just... don't make arguments to the person, to the authority, to the ANYTHING except the argument itself You'll live longer, love longer, and fart longer. All good things.

[One Above All]

Nevermind.

[Violet]

I didn't say any of those things, so I'm beginning to question your reading skills. I just said that it was a fallacy when the authority is not an authority on the subject. That said, whether the argument is sound or not is a whole different issue altogether.

*coughs*

Argument from authority (or argumentum ad verecundiam for those who prefer the Latin naming of fallacies) is only a fallacy when the authority is not an authority on the subject at hand, like, say, a preacher and physics.

It is a logically fallacious argument regardless of who the authority is or what they study. EVEN IF THEY'RE RIGHT... the argument that the argument is true/right BECAUSE someone says so is a fallacy.

What does this mean? It means that a preacher talking about physics has an equally valid argument to a physicist talking about physics, who has an equally valid argument to you or me talking about physics.

Learning opportunities, people failing to understand: just another day in the life.

---

Nevermind.

Hehe, speed is of the essence?

[One Above All]

I changed my post to "Nevermind." because I realized you were right.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I didn't say any of those things, so I'm beginning to question your reading skills. I just said that it was a fallacy when the authority is not an authority on the subject. That said, whether the argument is sound or not is a whole different issue altogether.

*coughs*

Argument from authority (or argumentum ad verecundiam for those who prefer the Latin naming of fallacies) is only a fallacy when the authority is not an authority on the subject at hand, like, say, a preacher and physics.

It is a logically fallacious argument regardless of who the authority is or what they study. EVEN IF THEY'RE RIGHT... the argument that the argument is true/right BECAUSE someone says so is a fallacy.

What does this mean? It means that a preacher talking about physics has an equally valid argument to a physicist talking about physics, who has an equally valid argument to you or me talking about physics.

Learning opportunities, people failing to understand: just another day in the life.

---

Nevermind.

Hehe, speed is of the essence?

---

What authority are you appealing to in order to prove that an appeal to authority is always logically fallacious? Sorry….I had to do it.