Talk:Argument from authority

The article needs to reflect the sources

As the sources make clear, some sources say this argument is solid and others that it's unreliable or a full-on fallacy. Remember WP:NPOV. The page cannot support one view over the other so long as sources say both. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

One needs to carefully read the sources that are centred on the subject. An article in which an expert in some area criticizes another expert in a related area because he uses "an argument from authority" is not necessarily centred on the subject. The source needs to be about fallacies and ideally directly on the subject of argument from authority. The last time I checked all sources centred on the subject did not consider it to be a fallacy, but, of course, I might have missed important sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you point out specific concerns? It seems to me that this version and this version are significantly different. Rather than make wholesale changes, can you explain what specific concerns you have? - Bilby (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The solution here seems quite clear to me. In the merging of the two versions is where a richer and fuller understanding can be found. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:A201:F400:94BA:A74F:BCD7:8D4C (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The two versions were merged. The article specifically states that it can be valid if used inductively, and invalid if used deductively. - Bilby (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

An Archaic View of the Appeal to Authority on the Page, Presently

The page currently says that "it is a practical and sound way of obtaining knowledge that is generally likely to be correct when the authority is real, pertinent, and universally accepted". The belief that an appeal to authority alone is a flawed method of reasoning stands even stronger today. In our current era, the vastness of available information mirrors the expansiveness of the universe.

Historically, expertise in specific fields of knowledge was often limited to those with extensive formal education or access to specialized resources. However, our times have witnessed a transformation in this dynamic. The digital age has democratized access to information. Research tools, scholarly articles, and a plethora of data are now as accessible to the public as public libraries were to citizens in earlier times. This accessibility has reshaped our understanding of expertise and authority. Even for those who do not speak the lingua scientia, translation tools have become truly astounding these days, allowing even speakers of such language access.

Contemporary scholars who synthesize and review literature do so by tapping into the same public databases and tools that are available to everyone. This shift emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and analytical skills over mere access to information which was so crucial even a matter of decades ago. In this context, the role of the 'expert' undergoes a transformation. Experts are no longer the sole gatekeepers of knowledge but are rather guides who have traversed the information landscape more extensively. While a well-traveled guide can be useful in any landscape, he may have a reason for wanting himself, the world, or yourself to get to a different destination than you might otherwise prefer, and different ideas on how to best arrive there. At times fresh perspectives can be just as valuable. In the past it was as if we were all stumbling blindly through this landscape and were hoping that those who took our hands to guide us were reliable.

But today this is certainly no longer the case! Democratization of information challenges us to reconsider the nature of expertise. With the same resources available to all, the distinction between expert and non-expert becomes blurrier and blurrier. It elevates the importance the willingness to continually update and revise our understanding in light of new information. The democratization of knowledge is bringing us to a context where everyone has the potential to contribute to the collective pool of understanding. Much like we see on Wikipedia itself!

While democratization of knowlegde is real, it still stands that authorities are generally more likely to be correct that general population today. ~~Adolphitus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adolphitus (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source to confirm that authorities are more likely to be correct than the general population? Nothing is immune from misinformation, judging by the diverse authoritative body forms around the world, its a 50/50 split in correctness overall. 2A02:AB04:2A5:A100:574:75DB:6CA1:A641 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Version of argument to use

Mr. Bilby you object to mixing the two versions of the page

why

We have a solid existing version. Can you break down each of the changes you wish to make, and explain why? - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Solid? The version you like is a meandering mess. It has references removed for no reason in favor of what reads like a sophomore's Philosophy 201 paper on it. Why don't you say why you got rid of the perfectly good consensus version that there was? In my opinion the most workable version is the one at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argument_from_authority&oldid=1140416843. Why is the one at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argument_from_authority&oldid=1192991172 (which seems to be the version you'd like to push) better? The only reason I can see is that you're after pushing a particular point of view on this issue and that's why you're opposed to the normal, balanced version that simply said people disagree on the extent to which this is a good argument. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What you have been asked for it to explain and discuss the edits you are making. The version you keep removing is the one that we have consensus on. The changes you are making seem unhelpful to me, but I'm open to discussion. The problem is that you will not engage in that discussion, but instead insist on reverting back to a version that does not have consensus, over the wishes of multiple editors. How about you explain what changes you want to make and why you wish to make each one? Then if there is consensus for those changes among all the editors involved in this article then they can go ahead. - Bilby (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

To help get you started. The version you reverted to states:

The general form of this type of argument is:

Person or persons A claim that X is true.

Person or persons A are experts in the field concerning X.

Therefore, X should be believed.

That is the inductive form of the argument. Given that you are arguing that both forms of the argument (inductive and deductive) should be included, (noting that they aready are) why present only one form as if it is the only one? - Bilby (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Has any sane person ever made a deductive argument from authority? I highly highly doubt that any published paper or, heck, even an informally published anything by a sane person says "authorities cannot be wrong and if they say something there is a metaphysical logical necessity of its truth". Obviously it's often mentioned that such an argument wouldn't work, but that seems to be more "this wouldn't work in deductive logic since it would mean that absurd conclusion". It's an example or illustration, not something that actually gets used in the real world and so there's no reason to clog the table of contents with it. We should get rid of the deductive section entirely. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

In which case, why also revert to a version which highlights the deductive version in science, while also removing the counter argument that the inductive version has a place? - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Has any sane person ever made a deductive argument from authority?"

It depends on what you call sane, but that is extremely common amongst people (and the media). I don't see why would you prefer an article that DOESN'T point that out, except if advocaed for the use of that logical fallacy.

All logical fallacies like ad hominem et cetera sound "insane" to intelligent people yet common people use it more often than not. That's not a valid reason to censor all articles pointing out those are fallacies.

It also seems like you haven't read the quotes from Locke. Adolphitus (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of Locke, what if we crunch the giant essay down into the information it's actually saying? I say we compress it down into something like: "In deductive reasoning, John Locke, who introduced the term, highlighted its invalidity in proving a claim solely based on authority since authorities can err. In contrast, in inductive reasoning, it's sometimes viewed as sound if the authority is credible, but still fallacious if based on false authority or controversial claims. The role of authority in science is contentious; some see it as essential for progress, while others emphasize the role of evidence over authority." Hits the important parts without all of the...well, frankly, the rambling. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not about arguments, it's about sources. Things need to be well-sourced and it needs to reflect what the sources say. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Validity of the argument in deductive and inductive methods" section

Is there a main source this is being drawn from? Currently to me it reads like a WP:SYNTH essay, like a paper someone wrote about the topic rather than something attempting to actually be of use to readers. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

To provide an illustration of what it looks like to me, suppose on our article about, say, the War in Ukraine 2/3 of the page was dedicated to a discussion of the second floor of the Kiev Post Office and its operations. All well-sourced and accurate, but would that be something of use to readers, or would it be a large and unnecessary block of information providing nothing of real use to the vast majority of visitors? Articles exist to be useful, not as repositories for essays on the subject that might be of great interest to one particular person but on the whole not useful for what people will generally be looking the thing up on Wikipedia for. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources

There are currently NO SOURCES that match the statement it is "considered a fallacy". Also not all the sources provided for the previosu statements are good quality either. I thnk we need to actually read them and delete thos that dont match the contents or are just some random blog, and stop birnging them back. Adolphitus (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

What is wrong with source #1? And if you doubt that it is a fallacy, think for a second. Just because anyone is an authority doesn't mean their reasoning is valid. You actually need an argument, the person has nothing to do with if it's true or false. Same with ad hominems, just because someone is an idiot doesn't mean their argument is automatically wrong. Ezed2K (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources do not say it is a fallacy. It is not a fallacy, I just did an edit today that says it right. It's not a FALLACY per se, it's simply NOT A PROOF. The argument from authority may always be correct, the cited authority may be saying the right thing in many cases. It's just not proof ever. But I agree that the wording needs to change here, it's bad. Could the reverter of my edit explain their logic, there's no defense in the cited sources for "fallacy". I think someone simply thought that "fallible" and "fallacy" were the same thing and they are not. 70.187.141.56 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a compilation of logical fallacies and it's absent. Logical Fallacies - List of Logical Fallacies with Examples 70.187.141.56 (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

logicalfallacies.org 70.187.141.56 (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Fallacy = The use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning. See Fallacy.

In the link you have provided the fallacy called "Appeal to Authority" is indeed present, it is in the second row of the informal fallacies or you can search it. And just asserting something, that "It's not a FALLACY per se, it's simply NOT A PROOF" is not an argument.

And you have yet to provide a counter argument to my argument. That is that the person where you get the information from has nothing to do with the truth of your argument. "My argument is true because this person said it and he is an authority figure". The authority of a figure is presuppositional and both people in the argument might not think that they are an authority figure so it doesn't work. Ezed2K (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)