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:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
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:
The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
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.
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
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.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the
subject in question.
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.
The person in question is not significantly biased.
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.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
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.
The authority in question must be identified.
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 and Jane are arguing about the morality of abortion:
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a woman
should have a right to her own body."
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 and Kintaro are arguing about Stalin's reign in the Soviet Union.
Dave has been arguing that Stalin was a great leader while Kintaro disagrees
with him.
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."
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."
I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series "Bimbos and Studmuffins
in the OR." You can take it from me that when you need a fast acting,
effective and safe pain killer there is nothing better than MorphiDope 2000.
That is my considered medical opinion.
Siphwe and Sasha are having a conversation:
Sasha: "I played the lottery today and I know I am going to win something."
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?"
|
