Fallacies: Appeal to Authority

Summary

The video script discusses the concept of 'appeal to authority,' a logical fallacy where the validity of an argument relies on the authority of the source rather than evidence. It explains that not all such appeals are fallacious and emphasizes the importance of evaluating the authority's expertise and relevance to the subject. Examples illustrate the difference between a credible appeal, such as a planetary scientist's opinion on Venus's habitability, and a less convincing one, like a website's claim without context. The script also touches on the subjectivity of authority recognition and the need for additional argumentation when authority is challenged.

Takeaways

• 📚 An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy where the validity of an argument is based on the perceived authority of the person, book, website, or institution making the claim.
• 🔍 Not all appeals to authority are fallacious; it's crucial to discern when they are justified and when they are not.
• 🌐 The argument's strength in an appeal to authority hinges on the reliability and expertise of the source, rather than the argument's own merits.
• 👨‍🔬 An example of a good appeal to authority is when a planetary scientist, who works for NASA, asserts that Venus is too hot to support life, given their expertise in the subject.
• 🌐 Conversely, an appeal to a nameless website's claim lacks credibility as the website's reliability is unknown, making it a poor appeal to authority.
• 🤔 The plausibility of an appeal to authority depends on whether the authority's claim about a subject matter is generally true or likely true.
• 🧐 To evaluate an appeal to authority, one must consider the source's expertise, the relevance of their expertise to the claim, and the plausibility of the claim itself.
• 🚫 There is no one-size-fits-all rule for judging authority claims; it requires background knowledge and context.
• 🤝 The acceptance of an authority's claim can vary widely among different audiences, influenced by their background assumptions and beliefs.
• 💡 When evaluating appeals to authority, consider whether the source is biased, the alignment of the claim with expert opinion, the plausibility of the claim, and whether the source is cited correctly and in context.

Q & A

What is an appeal to authority?

An appeal to authority is a type of argument where the validity of a claim is based primarily on the authority of the source, which can be a person, a book, a website, or an institution.

Can an appeal to authority ever be valid?

Yes, an appeal to authority can be valid if the authority in question is a credible expert in the relevant field and their expertise supports the claim being made.

What makes an appeal to authority fallacious?

An appeal to authority is fallacious when the source's authority is not relevant or credible regarding the claim, or when the claim is not supported by the source's expertise.

Why might a claim from a planetary scientist about life on Venus be considered a good appeal to authority?

A claim from a planetary scientist about life on Venus could be considered a good appeal to authority because a planetary scientist is an expert in the conditions necessary for life to exist on planets.

How does the credibility of a website impact an appeal to authority?

The credibility of a website significantly impacts an appeal to authority because a website's reliability and expertise are often unknown, making it a weak authority for supporting claims.

What is the structure of a good appeal to authority argument?

A good appeal to authority argument typically follows this structure: 'Almost everything that authority A says about subject matter S is true or probably true.' Then, a specific claim from authority A is used to infer the truth of a related claim about S.

Why is it difficult to judge the plausibility of an authority claim?

Judging the plausibility of an authority claim is difficult because it depends on the background knowledge and assumptions of the audience, which can vary widely.

How can the expertise of an authority be evaluated in an appeal to authority?

The expertise of an authority can be evaluated by considering their qualifications, their area of expertise, and how closely the claim in question aligns with their expertise.

What is the role of bias in evaluating appeals to authority?

Bias plays a significant role in evaluating appeals to authority because a biased source may have motives to mislead or present information in a favorable light, which can undermine the credibility of their claims.

Why might a paid spokesperson's endorsement be considered a fallacious appeal to authority?

A paid spokesperson's endorsement might be considered a fallacious appeal to authority because they may have a financial motive to be biased, and they might not possess the relevant expertise to make an informed claim about the product.

What factors should one consider when evaluating an appeal to authority?

When evaluating an appeal to authority, one should consider factors such as the source's bias, expertise, the plausibility of the claim, whether the source is being cited correctly, and how the claim compares with expert opinion on the subject.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Understanding Appeal to Authority

This paragraph discusses the concept of 'appeal to authority,' a logical fallacy where the validity of an argument is based on the authority of the source rather than the evidence or logic presented. It explains that not all appeals to authority are fallacious and provides an example of a child citing his father, a planetary scientist at NASA, as an authority on the uninhabitability of Venus due to its high temperatures. The paragraph also contrasts this with a less credible appeal to an unnamed website, highlighting the importance of the source's credibility. It further delves into the criteria that make an appeal to authority valid, such as the authority's expertise and relevance to the subject matter, and the need for background knowledge to assess such appeals. The discussion also touches on the variability of what constitutes an authority to different audiences, emphasizing the need for critical evaluation rather than blind acceptance.

05:02

🤔 Evaluating Authority Claims

The second paragraph continues the exploration of appeals to authority, emphasizing the subjectivity in judging the plausibility of authority claims based on the audience's background and assumptions. It stresses that while appeals to authority can be valid when the authority's claim is plausible, they become fallacious when the claim lacks plausibility. The paragraph also addresses the sensitivity of authority claims to audience variation, noting that different groups may认可 or reject an authority's expertise. It advises that additional argumentation may be necessary to support an authority claim, especially when there's skepticism. The paragraph concludes with a critique of the blanket dismissal of certain types of authority, such as celebrity endorsements, suggesting that while potential bias exists, it doesn't automatically invalidate all such endorsements. It encourages a nuanced approach to evaluating authority, considering factors like bias, expertise, and context.

Keywords

💡Appeal to Authority

An 'Appeal to Authority' is a logical fallacy where the validity of an argument is based on the perceived authority of the person making the claim. In the video, it is discussed as a reasoning technique that relies on the credibility of the source rather than the evidence or logic presented. The video script uses the example of a child citing his father, a planetary scientist, to argue that Venus is too hot for life, which is a case where the appeal to authority is considered plausible due to the father's expertise.

💡Fallacious

The term 'fallacious' refers to an argument or action that is deceptive or wrong. In the context of the video, it is used to describe an 'Appeal to Authority' that is not based on the actual expertise or reliability of the source. The video explains that not all appeals to authority are fallacious, but determining their validity requires evaluating the credibility and relevance of the authority's expertise.

💡Planetary Scientist

A 'Planetary Scientist' is an expert in the field of planetary science, which studies planets, moons, and planetary systems. In the script, the credibility of a planetary scientist is used to illustrate a plausible appeal to authority when the scientist's son claims that Venus is too hot for life, suggesting that the father's professional knowledge makes his statement reliable.

💡Expertise

Expertise refers to a high level of knowledge or skill in a specific area. The video emphasizes the importance of evaluating the expertise of the authority when assessing the validity of an appeal to authority. It is noted that a person's expertise must be relevant to the subject matter for their opinion to be considered credible.

💡Reliability

Reliability in the context of the video pertains to the trustworthiness of the information or the source providing it. The video discusses how the reliability of a website or an individual's claim can vary, and it is crucial to assess this when determining the strength of an appeal to authority.

💡Logical Fallacy

A 'Logical Fallacy' is an error in reasoning that undermines the logic of an argument. The video script discusses 'Appeal to Authority' as a type of logical fallacy, explaining that it becomes fallacious when the authority cited lacks the necessary expertise or when the claim is taken out of context.

💡Plausibility

Plausibility refers to the quality of being credible or seeming reasonable. The video uses the term to discuss how an appeal to authority is considered good if the claim about the authority's credibility is plausible, meaning it is supported by evidence or is logically sound.

💡Context

Context is the circumstances or setting in which something is said or happens. The video script mentions the importance of context when evaluating appeals to authority, as the same authority may be credible in one context but not in another. For example, a celebrity's endorsement might be credible within the context of their area of expertise but not for a product they have no knowledge of.

💡Bias

Bias refers to a predisposition or preference for one outcome or opinion over another, not based on reason or knowledge. The video discusses how bias can affect the credibility of an appeal to authority, especially when the authority has a vested interest in the outcome, such as a paid spokesperson.

💡Endorsement

An 'Endorsement' is a public approval or support for a product, person, or idea. The video script touches on the topic of endorsements, particularly celebrity endorsements, as a type of appeal to authority that may be fallacious due to potential bias and lack of relevant expertise.

💡Background Knowledge

Background knowledge refers to the information or understanding that a person already has, which can influence their judgment or interpretation. The video script suggests that evaluating the plausibility of an authority claim requires background knowledge about the authority's field of expertise and the subject matter in question.

Highlights

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy where the validity of an argument is based on the perceived authority of the person or source making the claim.

Authorities can be individuals, books, websites, or institutions, and the argument's strength relies on their credibility.

Not all appeals to authority are fallacious; determining their validity requires analysis.

A good appeal to authority example involves a child citing their planetary scientist father's claim that Venus is too hot for life.

A bad appeal to authority might involve referencing an unnamed website without verifying its reliability.

The internet, while a source of reliable information, also contains false data and unreliable sources, making it an insufficient authority on its own.

A valid appeal to authority assumes that the authority's statements on a subject are likely true.

An appeal is considered good if the authority's claim is defensible and fallsacious if it lacks plausibility.

Evaluating an appeal to authority requires background knowledge to assess the authority's expertise and relevance to the claim.

A planetary scientist is a credible authority on the conditions necessary for life on a planet, making their claim about Venus plausible.

The term 'life' can be broad, and some may argue that a planetary scientist's expertise is limited to life as we know it.

An amended argument that specifies 'life as we know it' can be a valid appeal to authority, demonstrating the need for precision in claims.

Judgments on the plausibility of authority claims can vary among different audiences based on their background assumptions.

Appeals to authority are sensitive to audience variations, and additional argumentation may be needed to defend the authority claim.

Paid endorsements, such as celebrity promotions, are often seen as fallacious appeals to authority due to potential bias and lack of expertise.

It's important to consider factors like bias, expert opinion, plausibility, and context when evaluating appeals to authority.

Transcripts

SPEAKER: An appeal to authority says

that an argument is probably good or bad,

or a claim is probably true or false,

because an authority says so.

The authority in question is often a person,

but it can also be a book or a website or an institution.

What makes it an appeal to authority

is that the justification for the inference

rests primarily on the authority of the source.

Not all appeals to authority are fallacious.

The trick is to figure out when they are,

and when they are not.

Here's an appeal to authority.

Two kids are talking about life on other planets,

and one reports that his dad says that Venus

is too hot to have life on it.

The other kid is dismissive.

He says, so what does he know?

The first kid responds that his dad is a planetary scientist

who works for NASA.

Assuming that he's not lying, and his dad really

is a planetary scientist, this looks

like it could be a good appeal to authority.

On the other hand, if he'd said this,

oh my dad looked it up on a website,

then the argument wouldn't be as convincing.

Now, the claim rests on the authority

of a nameless website.

Without anything else to go on, this is a bad argument

since we don't know anything about the reliability

of the website.

It could be right.

The internet is full of reliable information,

but it's also full false information and crackpot sites.

The worldwide web as a collective body

can't be treated as a reliable authority on anything.

Every appeal to authority relies on a claim like the following.

Anything, or almost anything, that authority A

says about subject matter S is true or probably true.

An appeal to authority is good just

in case a claim of this sort can be plausibility defended.

If it's true, then you can use a claim like this as a premise,

and use it to infer the truth of claims about S,

the subject matter in question.

On the other hand, if we don't have good reason

to think the claim is true, then it's a bad appeal to authority

and guilty of a fallacy.

So our planetary scientist example might look like this.

Almost everything that a planetary scientist

says about the conditions necessary for life

to exist on a planet are probably true.

James is a planetary scientist.

James says that Venus is most likely too hot for life

to exist.

Therefore, we can conclude that Venus is most likely too hot

for life to exist.

Now, the conclusion follows.

The logic is fine.

The only question is whether that first premise

that makes the authority claim is plausible or not.

If we think it's plausible, then we

should judge the argument to be good.

If we don't, then we should just it bad.

That it's a fallacious appeal to authority.

Unfortunately, there's no easy rule

for judging authority claims.

It rests entirely on our background knowledge.

To judge this claim we have to know something

about what planetary scientists do,

what their area of expertise is, how close the claim in question

is to their area of expertise and so on.

In this case, my first reaction is

that a planetary scientist is a very good authority

on this kind of question.

It seems right up their alley.

I've had students challenge this example, though.

They think that the term life is too broad,

and they'd want to restrict the authority claim of a scientist

to life as we know it.

Maybe organic life as we know it can't exist on Venus,

but maybe there are other kinds of living things that could

evolve or survive on Venus.

Maybe non-organic life forms that

operate on very different physical principles

than organic life on earth does.

A planetary scientist isn't necessarily

an expert on all possible forms of life.

Maybe no one is an expert on this,

so they would reject premise 1 as it stands,

but they would accept an amended form of the argument like this,

where we've restricted the claim at issue to life as we know it.

Now, they say, we have a good appeal to authority.

I'll buy this.

This sounds like a reasonable amendment

to the original argument, and it illustrates nicely

the kind of thinking you might have to do when evaluating

appeals to authority.

You really have to think hard about whether the proposed

authority really has relevant expertise

on the matter in question.

In lots of cases the answer is obvious.

My daughter's 11-year-old friend isn't

going to be a reliable authority on quantum field theory,

but she may well be an authority on who

the popular and unpopular kids are in her class at school.

In other cases, the judgment isn't so obvious,

and people's initial reactions may differ.

Here's an example where the claim at issue

is what happens to us after we die.

When the pope makes a claim about this,

how should we judge his authority on the matter?

Well, a devout Catholic may well treat the pope

as an authority on such things, and they

would judge the argument to be good,

but you might find that even among practicing Catholics

there's disagreement about what kind of authority

the pope really has, and certainly among non-Catholics

and atheists you're not likely to find

many who take the Pope to be an authority on the afterlife.

Many might question whether anyone

could be an authority on a question like this,

and this highlights a fact that we discussed

in the very first tutorial course

on basic and logical concepts, that judgments

about the plausibility or implausibility of premises

can vary from audience to audience, depending

on the background assumptions that different audiences bring

to the table.

There's no getting around it, and appeals to authority

are particularly sensitive to this kind of variation.

So to sum up, appeals to authority rest

on claims that assert that everything, or almost

everything, that A says about S is true or probably true.

This is the authority claim.

An appeal to an authority is good

when the authority claims is plausible.

It's fallacious when the authority claim is not

plausible.

Also, judgments with a plausibility

of authority claims are sensitive to differences,

in the experience and backgrounds

in different audiences.

One audience might recognize A an authority on a subject

while another audience might reject A, or at least be

skeptical about A an authority.

In cases like this, if you want to pursue an appeal

to authority, then you'll need additional argumentation

to defend the authority claim.

Now, let me make a final comment about appeals to authority

that you might encounter if you browse

other sources on fallacies.

You'll commonly find people saying

that certain kinds of appeals to authority

are always fallacious.

Probably the most common example is

about the authority of claims about a commercial product

coming from the lips of a paid spokesperson for the product.

Many sources will tell you that you should always

treat celebrity endorsements, for example, as fallacious

appeals to authority since these people are being paid

for their endorsement, so they have a motive to be biased,

and on top of that they probably don't

have any special expertise in the pros

and cons on the product in question as compared

to rival products on the market.

My response is that this is good advice

as far as it goes but I can't see a rationale for turning

this into an absolute rule.

Sometimes paid spokespersons are very well

informed about the pros and cons of a product,

and sometimes they really are good authorities on the subject

matter.

Yes, a paid endorsement introduces concerns about bias

that an unpaid endorsement avoids,

but I prefer to treat this as just one of many factors

that people have to take into consideration when evaluating

appeals to authority.

For any appeal to authority you should always

be asking questions like, is the source biased, or is there

some reason to mislead?

How does the source's claim compare with expert opinion

on the subject?

Is the claim plausible or implausible on its face?

Is the source being cited correctly,

or is the claim being taken out of context?

You need to consider many factors when judging appeals

to authority.