thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

[FBM]

I may be wrong, but I think the threat of infinite regression is curtailed by simply checking to see if the authority appealed to has legitimate qualification in the field in question. If another authority in the same field disagrees with the first, then it regresses into a contest of who can collect the most authorities with the best credentials who supports your assertion. I don't think it leads to absolute proof, in any event. Hume, et al, pointed that out long ago.

[Tyrannical]

Seraph, go learn what a fallacy is, then come back.

[Hermit]

Appeal to authority is definitely a logical fallacy. Where is the logic in the claim that something is true because an expert said it was? I have provided examples of where experts turned out to be wrong. Deal with that.

[FBM]

http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html

appeal to authority

The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority. E.g., to appeal to Einstein to support a point in religion would be to make an irrelevant appeal to authority. Einstein was an expert in physics, not religion. However, even if he had been a rabbi, to appeal to Rabbi Einstein as evidence that a god exists would still be an irrelevant appeal to authority because religion is by its very nature a controversial field. Not only do religious experts disagree about fundamental matters of religion, many people believe that religion itself is false. Appealing to non-experts as if they were experts, or appealing to experts in controversial fields, as evidence for a belief, are equally irrelevant to establishing the correctness of the belief.

The irrelevant appeal to authority is a type of genetic fallacy, attempting to judge a belief by its origin rather than by the arguments for and against the belief. If the belief originated with an authoritative person, then the belief is held to be true. However, even authoritative persons can hold false beliefs.

Appeals to authority do not become relevant when instead of a single authority one cites several experts who believe something is true. If the authorities are speaking outside of their field of expertise or the subject is controversial, piling up long lists of supporters does not make the appeal any more relevant. On any given controversial matter there are likely to be equally competent experts on different sides of the issue. If a controversial claim could be established as true because it is supported by experts, then contradictory beliefs would be true, which is absurd. The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief.

Finally, it should be noted that it is not irrelevant to cite an authority to support a claim one is not competent to judge. However, in such cases the authority must be speaking in his or her own field of expertise and the claim should be one that other experts in the field do not generally consider to be controversial. In a field such as physics, it is reasonable to believe a claim about something in physics made by a physicist that most other physicists consider to be true. Presumably, they believe it because there is strong evidence in support of it. Such beliefs could turn out to be false, of course, but it should be obvious that no belief becomes true on the basis of who believes it.

Emphasis mine.

[Svartalf]

I may be wrong, but I think the threat of infinite regression is curtailed by simply checking to see if the authority appealed to has legitimate qualification in the field in question. If another authority in the same field disagrees with the first, then it regresses into a contest of who can collect the most authorities with the best credentials who supports your assertion. I don't think it leads to absolute proof, in any event. Hume, et al, pointed that out long ago.

Hey man, that takes us back to the pre Caroline Germanic justice systems, where the winner was the guy who had most 'witnesses' to swear that he was in the right... (that usually meant gathering all of your kin, and your and their men and anybody who owed you favors, or wanted you to owe them one, and then going before a judge where the other guy had done the same... usually, it did not degenerate into pitched battle)

[Svartalf]

Appeal to authority is definitely a logical fallacy. Where is the logic in the claim that something is true because an expert said it was? I have provided examples of where experts turned out to be wrong. Deal with that.

You mean like the fact that Ptolemy was an expert astronomer and had a perfectly mapped out cosmological system?

[FBM]

I may be wrong, but I think the threat of infinite regression is curtailed by simply checking to see if the authority appealed to has legitimate qualification in the field in question. If another authority in the same field disagrees with the first, then it regresses into a contest of who can collect the most authorities with the best credentials who supports your assertion. I don't think it leads to absolute proof, in any event. Hume, et al, pointed that out long ago.

Hey man, that takes us back to the pre Caroline Germanic justice systems, where the winner was the guy who had most 'witnesses' to swear that he was in the right... (that usually meant gathering all of your kin, and your and their men and anybody who owed you favors, or wanted you to owe them one, and then going before a judge where the other guy had done the same... usually, it did not degenerate into pitched battle)

Not quite, I'm afraid. Not unless all those 'witnesses' were experts in whatever was being asserted.

[Svartalf]

They usually were experts in bashing your head in if you disagreed with the Chief, why?

[FBM]

They usually were experts in bashing your head in if you disagreed with the Chief, why?

Works for me.

[Tyrannical]

Appeal to authority is definitely a logical fallacy. Where is the logic in the claim that something is true because an expert said it was? I have provided examples of where experts turned out to be wrong. Deal with that.

Sure they can be wrong still, but that doesn't make it a fallacy.

[Svartalf]

You seem unable to cope with the fact that you may commit fallacies even if the position you're advocating is right.

I know how gravitational forces and celestial movements work because Newton say so is right, it's still a logical fallacy unless you master the mathematics and facts to demonstrate it to the guy who is peddling woo.

[FBM]

You seem unable to cope with the fact that you may commit fallacies even if the position you're advocating is right.

I know how gravitational forces and celestial movements work because Newton say so is right, it's still a logical fallacy unless you master the mathematics and facts to demonstrate it to the guy who is peddling woo.

Gotta disagree here. One need not personally master all the relevant skills required to make an authoritative claim. That's why authorities' work in their specific fields are so important. Someone with a bigger brain does all the work and us lessers point to them to dig us out of a tight spot. Not everyone can master the mathematics and facts in every field that they may need to comment on, and requiring that would be ridiculous.

Svarty, how do you know microrganisms cause disease? Because practically every relevant authority on epidemiology says the same thing, right? But have you done all the required research yourself? No? Then how can you claim to know that bacteria and viruses cause diseases?

[Svartalf]

Yeah, but on my part, it's still an argument of authority.
I mean, it's right of me to win the debate on the say so of Newton/Einstein/Darwin/whoever is an authority in whatever field I'm disputing...
but wrong of a guy who claims "because the bible says so", given that to that guy's deluded mind, the bible is better qualified and more truthful than any human ever could be?

We know those facts, and yes, I accept them because I respect the authorities who discovered them... but if we are debating, an argument at authority can always be countered by an argument to a different authority, and let's face it, an evangelical won't believe the Curies and other discoverers of radioactivity on the point that isotopic radiometry and spectrometry let us know that the earth is not 6000 years old.

[Tyrannical]

You seem unable to cope with the fact that you may commit fallacies even if the position you're advocating is right.

I know how gravitational forces and celestial movements work because Newton say so is right, it's still a logical fallacy unless you master the mathematics and facts to demonstrate it to the guy who is peddling woo.

You see, the problem is that some people don't understand what the meaning of the word fallacy is.

It does not matter if the end result is ultimately accurate or not, it is the steps you took to come to that conclusion that determine if a logical fallacy was committed.


Say there is a hypothetical scientist named Lichael Lann who for some reason holds great renown and respect in his field, even though he is full of shit. It is not a logical fallacy to cite Lichael as reason for holding a belief, if you have evidence to support his expert status. The fallacy occurs when you have no evidence to support their trustworthiness on a subject.

[FBM]

Yeah, but on my part, it's still an argument of authority.
I mean, it's right of me to win the debate on the say so of Newton/Einstein/Darwin/whoever is an authority in whatever field I'm disputing...
but wrong of a guy who claims "because the bible says so", given that to that guy's deluded mind, the bible is better qualified and more truthful than any human ever could be?

We know those facts, and yes, I accept them because I respect the authorities who discovered them... but if we are debating, an argument at authority can always be countered by an argument to a different authority, and let's face it, an evangelical won't believe the Curies and other discoverers of radioactivity on the point that isotopic radiometry and spectrometry let us know that the earth is not 6000 years old.

It doesn't matter what certain subsets of people will accept as authoritative or not. There is no paucity of people who doubt evolution/natural selection, but that doesn't mean that their refusal to acknowledge the evidence as presented by relevant authorities is legitimate.

http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html

Einstein was an expert in physics, not religion. However, even if he had been a rabbi, to appeal to Rabbi Einstein as evidence that a god exists would still be an irrelevant appeal to authority because religion is by its very nature a controversial field. Not only do religious experts disagree about fundamental matters of religion, many people believe that religion itself is false. Appealing to non-experts as if they were experts, or appealing to experts in controversial fields, as evidence for a belief, are equally irrelevant to establishing the correctness of the belief.

Emphasis mine. Sorry for re-citing the same source I posted on a previous page, but maybe you skipped over it.

I'm reminded of Pyrrho of Elis, who said that it is not wise to make knowledge assertions on non-evident metaphysical questions. You see a scar, it's safe to assume there was an earlier wound. He would only engage in necessary inference, not the tempting speculative type.

Scientific knowledge is by nature inferential, and mathematics is the skill scientists use to try to bring their speculative inferences closer to necessary inference. It doesn't always work. But it does often enough that it's the best available resource to utilize. Therefore, one refers to the works of those who have mastered those skills as a source of the best currently available scholarship on a topic, but a careful debater would be wise to refrain from leaping from inference to claims of absolute truth. In any event, it isn't necessary for every debater to master all those skills him/herself, as long as the authority cited represents the best available scholarship in that field. If that field is inherently contoversial, all bets are off and no authority is better than any other. Thus, one may cite authorities in such fields as physics, chemistry and biology without committing the argumentum ad verecundiam, but not so in religion, magic, astrology, etc.