> I am sorry to be a pedant but you people are using the term "appeal to > authority" to mean the opposite of what it should mean. I have mentioned > this before. Here's the definition: > > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html > > "Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, > Irrelevant Authority . . . > > . . . 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." >
You're right. Claiming that something must be right because some authority said so, if not fallacious per se(that is, if not a false statement), is an appeal to authority, plain and simple. You may dislike the use of it in an argument, but it nevertheless is a valid argument to support a claim, (specially when given to support other arguments), and I agree that it can certainly bolster it. In fact, we use forms of appeal to authority all the time. I want to mention only one more thing: when an appeal to authority is made for lack of, or to try to counteract other (probably stronger) arguments, it tends to become suspicious, and that's probably the reason why it's usually associated and confused with the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. > > For example, we have Mary Yugo claiming that she is something of an expert > in calorimetry. She has designed and tested calorimeters. If that is true, > that makes her a legitimate authority on the subject. If she cites herself > when making a technical claim that is *not* a fallacious appeal to > authority. It is a valid appeal. > > The problem is that she has not revealed her identity, so we cannot judge > whether she is actually an authority. We have to take her word for it. > That > is okay but not very satisfactory. In any case, that does not make this a > fallacious appeal to authority; it makes it an incomplete or unverified > appeal. > > She wrote: > > >> If the arguments stand on their own, why would you need an identity? >> > > The answer is you do not need an identity, but having a valid authority > does bolster a claim. > > > >> I'm sure I don't need to remind you that relying on the identity >> of someone who supports a claim as evidence for the claim is the >> logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". > > > No, it is *not*. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It would only be an appeal to > authority fallacy if the person you cite is not actually an authority. > > A statement by an authority may be wrong but we should give it weight. It > is more likely to be correct then a statement by a nonexpert or amateur. > > It can be difficult to know who is actually an authority. Many people who > make pronouncements about cold fusion consider themselves authorities but > it often turns out they know nothing about the subject. The book, "The > Experts Speak" is a cynical compendium of quotes that turned out to be > mistakes. This book is an attempt to discredit experts. However, most of > these quotes are from people who were not experts; but only thought they > were. The real experts in most cases were correct. > > - Jed >
