Appeal to authority

[Der/die AtheistIn]

It's the fallacy that something must be true, because an authority figure or expert sais so. I've been hearing this fallacy quite a lot and don't remember it being used to prove points which I personally believe to be true. Could it be, that the people trying to convince others of this point of view have a difficult time themselves believing their own claims?

[Belacqua]

people trying to convince others of this point of view have a difficult time themselves believing their own claims? 

Or it may be that they find it easy to believe their own claims, but look for ways that they think will convince others. 

We all rely on authorities, to some extent. I could, in theory, test for myself what the speed of light is, but I'm not going to do it. Maybe I could even set up my own double-blind trials to test that my heartburn medicine is safe (would that even be legal for me to do?), but the authority of various experts means that I won't. 

The main difference is probably that you don't trust the people they trust.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's the fallacy that something must be true, because an authority figure or expert sais so. I've been hearing this fallacy quite a lot and don't remember it being used to prove points which I personally believe to be true. Could it be, that the people trying to convince others of this point of view have a difficult time themselves believing their own claims?

"Biblical scholars say..."

[Brian37]

It's the fallacy that something must be true, because an authority figure or expert sais so. I've been hearing this fallacy quite a lot and don't remember it being used to prove points which I personally believe to be true. Could it be, that the people trying to convince others of this point of view have a difficult time themselves believing their own claims?

There is a huge difference between the appeal to lawmakers, religious leaders, and independent scientific peer review that fosters consensus over time.

North Korea has laws, so in that context, yea appeal to their authority is bullshit.

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.

[Belacqua]

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.

[Brian37]

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.

Not the point.

The consensus that is based on objective independent peer review is the best tool humans have to weed out personal bias. No ethical scientist is going to say, "don't question me." An ethical scientist is going to say, "By all means do so. Kick the tires. I want to know if I am onto something or not.".

Politics and religion are not subject to objectivity. Scientific method is the only principle that has the intent, when used properly, to be self correcting when new or better data come in. Governments and religions are not science labs subject to independent peer review . The word "authority" does not have the same meaning between them.

Consensus in scientific method also comes with the attitude of scrapping bad data. Consensus in politics and religion do not have that standard. Politics and religion uses "consensus" as a popularity contest. So that is not the same word "authority", and cannot be treated the same.

It is the same thing with the word, "theory" laypeople think of, and the different usage of "theory" science uses the same word.

You "obey" a speed limit, because society agrees on that law, or you get a ticket. The "laws" of thermodynamics are not "laws" like lawmakers make, but the word "law" as  description of scientists observations that have been countlessly repeated as to foster consensus in agreement, and that is a different kind of "authority" when talking about those things. Scientists are not cops or congressmen, they are scientists, so the word "authority" is a completely different  context.

[Der/die AtheistIn]

There is a huge difference between the appeal to lawmakers, religious leaders, and independent scientific peer review that fosters consensus over time.

North Korea has laws, so in that context, yea appeal to their authority is bullshit.

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.

Appealing to authority is a fallacy only when the argument is that something is true, because someone with authority says so, this is always false, even if the thing that you try to prove is true. When a scientist makes observations, it's the observation itself that is proof.

[Brian37]

There is a huge difference between the appeal to lawmakers, religious leaders, and independent scientific peer review that fosters consensus over time.

North Korea has laws, so in that context, yea appeal to their authority is bullshit.

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.

Appealing to authority is a fallacy only when the argument is that something is true, because someone with authority says so, this is always false, even if the thing that you try to prove is true. When a scientist makes observations, it's the observation itself that is proof.

I think what people are missing, is the difference as to how laypeople use a word, and how that same word in science is a completely different definition.

You cannot treat the word "authority" as laypeople use as being the same definition as scientific method uses that word. 


You, "it is the observation that is the proof"..... <---- Yes, I agree. And that "authority" that comes up with the consensus by independent peer review is not a laypersons definition.

The only point I am making in this is that you cannot and should not let laypeople treat the same word they think of as being equal to how science uses the same word.

[LastPoet]

"According to einstein the closer to the speed of light an object is the slower time will pass for it, to an outside observer" -> not a fallacy.

"Eistein believed in god, therefore god exists" -> appeal to authority.

[Dr H]

It's the fallacy that something must be true, because an authority figure or expert sais so. I've been hearing this fallacy quite a lot and don't remember it being used to prove points which I personally believe to be true. Could it be, that the people trying to convince others of this point of view have a difficult time themselves believing their own claims?

"Biblical scholars say..."

And 4 out of 5 dentists agree.