Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> wrote: 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.
Not plain, and not so simple. Technically, it is only a so-called "appeal to authority" (Ad Verecundiam) if the person you point to is not an authority. In any case, this is a weak argument. No one would say something "must be right" based on a valid authority. Only that it may well be right, and should be carefully considered. > You may dislike the use of it in an argument, but it nevertheless is a > valid argument to support a claim . . . Yes. It is annoying. if you are going to do this, it is best to list the expert and relevant publication; i.e. if we are talking about transmutations you say "Bockris, 1996." > 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. > Good point. - Jed
