Fallacies: Appeal to Authority
Summary
TLDRThe 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
📚 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.
🤔 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Appeal to Authority
💡Fallacious
💡Planetary Scientist
💡Expertise
💡Reliability
💡Logical Fallacy
💡Plausibility
💡Context
💡Bias
💡Endorsement
💡Background Knowledge
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.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)