Talk:Argument from authority/Archive 3

ad verecundiam vs. argumentum ad verecundiam

It seems you can call it "argumentum ad verecindiam" of course, but all you need is "ad verecundiam". http://windsor.scholarsportal.info/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/viewFile/2812/2253 for example has an article that's called "What Type of Argument is an Ad Verecundiam?". Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

That a phrase can be shortened doesn't mean that the full version should be excluded from the article. That's absurd, and very bad editing. Even the one old scan of an article that you link to not only refers to it as an argument, but cites the full phrase argumentum ad verecundiam in its notes. You need to provide an extensive explanation for why excluding the full phrase would somehow be necessary, or else stop committing the bad edits removing it. — Kaz (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that "ad verecundiam" means "appeal to authority". You don't need to put "argumentum" before it. Its like saying "appeal to authority" vs. "appeal to authority fallacy" - the "fallacy" clarifies what it is, but it isn't necessary and somewhat redundant. There are endless examples of "argumentum" not being needed. See http://www.langtoninfo.com/web_content/9780521842082_frontmatter.pdf for example on page 8 of the PDF, it just says "the ad verecundiam and the misuse of experts". 98.185.18.251 (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is needed is irrelevant to whether the fact that the complete phrase exists and is popularly used should be included in the article. Obviously, it should, unless including it is somehow problematic or false. I have so far made no case for either. — Kaz (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

So does the phrase "appeal to authority fallacy". Something doesn't stop being redundant because its in Latin. 98.185.18.251 (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The full phrase is "argumentum ad hominem". "Fallacy" is not even Latin. It's not part of the phrase, ergo not part of the name. Including the full phrase, obviously, is not redundant. — Kaz (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that being the full phrase? Calling something "ad verecundiam" or "ad hominem" is all you need to identify something as being the fallacy. "Argumentum" at the beginning is as redundant as "fallacy". Saying its sometimes shortened to "ad verecundiam" is like saying "the appeal to authority fallacy (sometimes shortened to appeal to authority)...". It clogs up the intro with redundant and pointless information. 98.185.18.251 (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You know, if you're going to go around cutting information from articles, and then argue it in the discussion area, the least you could do is be responsible enough to bother knowing something of the topic, yourself. I already have two references that are links to articles using the full phrase. And by "full phrase", I mean that if you were competent with logical fallacy terminology, you'd know that argumentum is the standard initiation of the full phrase for many informal fallacies. Ad hominem starts thus:

“ An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. ”

In fact, you can go to List of logical fallacies and see that ALL of the informal fallacies with similar names include, normally, the full phrase, which starts with "argumentum". Again, this is logic 101 sort of stuff, you need to learn the topic before you start censoring a given article, so you don't make a fool of yourself and exclude valid information. — Kaz (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Another example of how it's encyclopedic to include argumentum, here is some exerpts from from List of fallacies. EACH LINE I included here contains the argumentum:

• Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.
• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
• Argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore; sometimes confused with proof by assertion
• Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
• Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.
• Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.
  • ergo decedo – where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.
• Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.

[...]

• Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
• Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition a.k.a. argumentum ad infinitum
• Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)

[...]

• Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
• Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.
  • Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents.
• Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis/antiquitatis) – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.
• Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)
• Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
• Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor). (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
• Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.
• Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.
• Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.

Follow the links to the actual articles, and note that 100% of them include the word argumentum in the article as part of the name. Trying to exclude this just shows ignorance of the jargon used for logic in general.

— Kaz (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's like arguing "fallacy" is a term for what appeals to authority are, so we need to say "appeal to authority fallacy (sometimes shortened to appeal to authority)". "Argumentum" isn't a special term, it just means "argument". Showing other articles are redundant doesn't mean this one needs to be as well. Feel free to note this stuff elsewhere in the article, but let's leave it out of the lead, which needs to be concise. 98.185.18.251 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

First, Orange, you need to log in to discuss this. You're not fooling anyone; there's nobody else dumb enough to think that while 100% of other fallacies use the full phrase, this one must have it censored. Second, your argument is not only wrong, it shows you're ignorant of the entire concept in general. If you want to change this, you need to convince the entire academic/logic community, because the word "argumentum" is considered part of the complete, accurate phrase, with truncation only being a shorthand. If you'd ever taken Logic 101, you'd know this. Most importantly, every other fucking argumentum article includes the full phrase. What you are insisting on is absolutely idiotic and childish. Stop the half-assed sock puppeting, get a life, and stop reverting the article.— Kaz (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly its not sock puppeting, everyone knows this is my IP. And like I've been saying, wouldn't "appeal to authority fallacy" be the full phrase as well? Technically "appeal to authority" is a shortening of "appeal to authority fallacy". But it can be used on its own, and including the "fallacy" is just redundant. But I'll try and clean the lead up a bit for a consensus version. Is it agreeable? It keeps the "argumentum" of the new version while having more of the tightness of the previous version. 98.185.18.251 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, "appeal to authority fallacy" is not the same, because "argumentum" is normally included in the classical phrase for each of the informal fallacies used in this way. What's more, argumentum ad means "appeal to" or "argument to", not "fallacy". One says "appeal to authority", not "to authority", and one says "argumentum ad verecundiam". That people can abbreviate it doesn't mean the full phrase must be hidden from the article. Again, this is clearly because you haven't actually studied logical fallacies. Why did you cut out the two references that use the full phrase? Not only do I distrust your motives, anticipating a return later to censor it "to match the reference", but having more than one sound reference already existing, there's no reason to remove them. Anyway, the majority of the argumentum informal fallacy articles use a format like "Appeal to Authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam)", perhaps that would make it clearer for all. — Kaz (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Page vs. Pages in the last citation in the article

The citation of New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics cites both the page number of the quoted section of the .PDF from which is comes, and the pages numbers in the source book. Apparently both can't be used, so which do you think is more important? 98.185.18.251 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

For my personal vote I vote keep the page in the .PDF. 98.185.18.251 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The first line - does an argument from authority "lead to a logical fallacy when used in argumentative reasoning"?

That's what the first line of the article says, and that's what it said before I edited it, since the original source for that claim doesn't seem to support the claim at all. However, it's since been re-introduced with a new source. I don't think that source supports the claim, either, but I wanted to talk about it here instead of starting an edit war. (For posterity, the article is here.)

First, one interpretive assumption that I should make explicit. As line reads right now, I take it to mean that arguments from authority always or usually or normally lead to fallacies when used in argumentative reasoning. I suppose it could mean merely that such arguments sometimes lead to fallacies, but I think it's unusual to phrase a statement categorically like this when it's only meant to apply some of the time. If the article on peanuts were to begin "Peanuts are legumes that lead to allergic reactions when eaten by humans," people would probably take this to mean that most people are allergic to peanuts. This would be misleading. So, we shouldn't say this sort of thing unless there is a reliable source saying that arguments from authority typically lead to fallacies in argumentative reasoning. (If all we're trying to say is that arguments from authority can be fallacious, then I think we should rephrase the sentence, and I apologize for being long-winded!)

Now, onto the source that's been offered in support if this claim. Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall, but I have a copy through institutional access, and I'll try to give a fair summary of what's said in the article on this subject.

First relevant passage:

What is wrong with arguing from authority? The short answer is, nothing – if the authority is a good one (for the conclusion in question). The reason why arguing from authority as such is sometimes classified as a fallacy is that it is not distinguished from arguing merely from putative authority.

There's nothing here about arguments from authority being categorically fallacious. To the contrary, it's specifically stated that there's nothing wrong with arguments from authority, provided that the authority in question is not merely a putative authority.

Second relevant passage:

Paying too much attention to the latter kind of case, that of the deliberate, sophistical use of false authority to persuade an opponent, is one thing that leads to the traditional view that arguments from authority are always fallacious. Another is focussing on the case where an arguer (perhaps a solitary one) is indeed convinced of the genuineness and relevance of the authority to which she is appealing but is, in our view, mistaken in that conviction. Each of these pictures of argument from authority mistakes one species of such argument for the genus and, having done so, is unable to account for the obvious fact that we regard some arguments from authority as perfectly good arguments and are right in doing so. In this way they fail to save the phenomena and fail to provide an explanation of them.

Here, the authors of the article claim that it's a mistake to regard certain fallacious types of argument from authority as representative examples of that type of argument. They say it is an obvious fact that some arguments from authority are perfectly good arguments.

These passages come at the beginning and end of a paragraph that is, by my lights, the only significant discussion of argument from authority in the article. (The middle part of the paragraph concerns the details of the theory of argument that is the topic of the article.) So, unless I am misreading these passages, or I have overlooked something else, the article simply does not support the claim that it's been cited to support. I'm curious to know if anyone sees a specific part of the article that I'm missing. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Right - like it says, an argument based merely on "putative authority" isn't valid - you need genuine evidence to support it. You might present an appeal to authority as part of a case, and it might contribute to it, but its like pointing out someone's bias to discredit their argument. An argument based merely on putative bias isn't valid - same for an appeal to authority. The article itself notes that the traditional view is that arguments from authority are always fallacious (and that's primarily what I had in mind when I cited it) - the article is just pointing out that its not, strictly speaking, always fallacious. If you don't have time to consider arguments for example (like if you're in a battle and your commanding officer says something needs to be done), then it might help. But when it comes to actual argumentative reasoning where someone is disputing a conclusion, basing an argument off of someone's authority becomes fallacious. Like this article states, "The fallacy occurs in accepting his [the authority's] opinion alone without considering the evidence". 98.185.18.251 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that your interpretation goes well beyond what's defended in the source. You say that arguments from "putative authority" are contrasted with arguments that include "genuine evidence" to support the appeal. But the notion of "genuine evidence" does not appear in the source. Instead, the contrast is between putative authority and arguments that "justify ... the genuineness of the authority we are appealing to and ... its relevance to the conclusion we are trying to establish." So, according to the source, it is necessary to justify the claim that the authority is indeed a relevant authority. But there is no mention of any idea that there needs to be additional "genuine evidence" beside this.

You say that "the article is just pointing out that its not, strictly speaking, always fallacious." But I see no indication in the article that this is all that the authors are saying. They do not seem to think that arguments from authority are generally fallacious, but with some exceptions. Instead, they think that it is only in a few special cases - namely, when one deliberately appeals to a false authority or when one is mistaken about the genuineness or relevance of the authority - that things go wrong.

You say that appeals to authority become legitimate when there isn't time to consider arguments, and that they become illegitimate when there is time to consider other arguments. I find nothing like this in the source.

I don't think that the other source that you cite supports this claim, either. That source is discussing a specific hypothetical example in which the putative authority involved in the appeal may not be a genuine authority ("Dr. Jones' credentials ... do not necessarily make him an expert at anything"). The paragraph continues by saying that the hypothetical doctor might have good evidence even though he is not an expert in the field. It's in that context - where it is presupposed that the person in question is not an authority - that we find the warning against accepting the doctor's opinion.

Contrast this take with what other sources have to say (including sources which are, quite bizarrely, cited in the Wikipedia article as if they condemn arguments from authority). Here is the SEP article on logical fallacies: "Fundamentally, the [ad verecundiam] fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority." The same encyclopedia's article on informal logic speaks of "cogent" and "reasonable" appeals to authority. Harry Gensler, in his Introduction to Logic, says that appeals to authority have a correct form (and he does not say that they require some additional evidence besides the authority). He concludes that "many of our trusted beliefs ... rest quite properly on the say so of others" (this is on pp. 61-62 of his book, second edition). Merrilee Salmon, in her Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, says that "many arguments that appeal to a legitimate authority are strong inductive arguments (118). She then identifies specific circumstances in which such arguments are fallacious - namely, when the authority is not an expert and when there is disagreement among experts. She does not say that arguments from authority are only legitimate if you don't have time to consider other evidence, or if you have an independent line of evidence supporting the conclusion.

Because of the common view of sources like this - including the ones that you have cited - I think the article should say the same thing: that an argument from authority is a legitimate form of argument that has some fallacious species. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

“You say that arguments from ‘putative authority’ are contrasted with arguments that include "genuine evidence" to support the appeal.”

I was more saying that about appeals to authority in general. Clearly, if an authority or authorities are incorrect about something, then they don’t genuinely have authority on an issue. Look at the examples listed on the page. Theophilus Painter was a legitimate authority on the subject of chromosomes, and it is true that the literature and medical authorities went against the claim that puerperal fevers were the result of an infection.

An appeal to authority would have had us believing them, and in fact that’s exactly what that sort of reasoning did – at, as the article notes, the cost of thousands of lives when it came to puerperal infections.

Saying something along the lines of “he is an authority. Therefore he is usually right. Therefore he is an authority. Therefore he is usually right.” is, like the article notes, circular reasoning that can be and effectively has been used to define any person or group into inerrancy.

“You say that appeals to authority become legitimate when there isn't time to consider arguments”

“Necessary” would be a better way to put it than “legitimate”. A very common vein of discussion in the literature about appeals to authority is how appeals can be practically necessary yet so flawed in theory.

“That source is discussing a specific hypothetical example in which the putative authority involved in the appeal may not be a genuine authority”

And there’s the clear notion that evidence is needed to establish whether we can trust that putative authority or not.

“I think the article should say the same thing: that an argument from authority is a legitimate form of argument that has some fallacious species.”

Perhaps we could return to the original source, and have the page state that appeals to authority lead to a logical fallacy when misused? 98.185.18.251 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree re: saying that they lead to a logical fallacy when misused. I think an informal logic textbook (such as the ones by Gensler and Salmon) makes for a better source, since they address the topic with a lot more detail (the original source was an outline from a lecture). Lord Mondegreen (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It is done! Good work spotting all this. If these are your first edits then you'll make for a great Wikipedian! 98.185.18.251 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying the Appropriate Use of an Appeal to Authority -- Avoiding the Fallacy

If the example regarding Climate Change is too contentious to illustrate a proper appeal to authority, perhaps we could identify another?

Specifically, Deductive conclusions are indicative of a fallacy, whereas Inductive and Abductive conclusions can be valid.

Argument:

Recognizing a proper Appeal to Authority is helpful and necessary when identifying improper appeals to authority.

Earlier, it was suggested that the first article in a debate between two groups of scientists is an exemplary sample of a valid way of "Appealing to Authority" -- without invoking a logical fallacy.

The first letter exhibited a proper use of the Appeal to Authority, whereas the second response letter mishandled that appeal, and exacerbated it further by encapsulating it in a Bandwagon fallacy.

The first group's argument followed:

1. We are well respected scientists in our fields.
2. As expert scientists, we are uniquely qualified to identify and testify regarding the misapplication of the scientific method.
3. Scientist's in another field are not engaging in the Scientific Method as we do, and deviating from accepted "Best Practices".
4. Consequently, their credibility as scientists is being called into question.
5. And Consequently, any "truth" or "validity" in their conclusions are necessarily called into question.
5. Therefore, based on these observations, more support must be provided to the second group in order to strengthen their work. 

An "Appeal to Authority" is formally invalid within the context of a deductive argument ... where the the appeal "certifies" the truth value of the premise, which entails a specific conclusion.

Abductive Validity:

 - Explanation E is the best of the explanations, if all Authorities A* have no better explanations for the set of data D they have.

Abductive Invalidity:

 - Explanation E is the best explanation, if Authorities A1 are in consensus, regardless of A2.

Inductive Validity:

 - Conclusion C1 is probably widely held and Strong, if Authorities A are in consensus.

Inductive Invalidity:

 - Conclusion C1 is probable, if Authority A1 asserts the proposition P1.
 - Conclusion C1 is more probable if asserted by Authorities A1, more-so than Conclusion C2 asserted by Authorities A2.

Deductive Fallacy:

 - Conclusion C necessarily follows if Authority A asserts the proposition P.
 - Conclusion C2 is necessarily weak, if not proposed by Authorities A1, but rather A2.

Elika Kohen 19:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Mediation - Dispute Resolution

Hey guys! I'll be the mediator on this page. We've already met on the DRN, so I wanted to get a discussion going. I think an important issue to establish here is: what do you each see as being the scope of this article? TheLogician112 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@TheLogician112: I've already responded on the DRN page. I could transcribe that here, if you would prefer to continue it on this page. (I think that might be a better idea, as it frees all parties from having to watch the DRN and check every edit to see if someone responded just before that). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Use in logic section

I deleted the "Use in logic" section because it incorrectly claimed that the argument from authority was a formal fallacy. It said this: "It is fallacious to use any appeal to authority in the context of logical reasoning. Because the argument from authority is not a logical argument in that it does not argue something's negation or affirmation constitutes a contradiction, it is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true."

However, this is incorrect. It is true that in a formally valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. However, it is not a requirement of a formally valid argument that the premises be true. Thus it is trivially easy to create formally valid arguments from authority. For instance:

1) If Professor Moriarty claims the theory of evolution is false, then the theory of evolution is false. 2) Professor Moriarty claims the theory of evolution is false. 3) Therefore, the theory of evolution is false.

This is a formally valid argument (modus ponens) that argues on the basis of Professor Moriarty's authority that the theory of evolution is false. Now, doubtless we might think that (1) is false. But that doesn't matter. A formally valid argument can have false premises.Original Position (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm new to editing wiki, so I'll make some mistakes I guess. I'll go through this line by line.

It is fallacious to use any appeal to authority in the context of logical reasoning.

No citation here, and this is false. If by "logical reasoning" we mean deductive arguments only, then as I demonstrated above, it is indeed possible to construct deductively valid appeals to authority. If by "logical reasoning" we are also including abductive and inductive arguments, then as argued in talk above, appealing to appropriate authority is not considered fallacious by experts.

Because the argument from authority is not a logical argument in that it does not argue something's negation or affirmation constitutes a contradiction, it is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[11]

This is not particularly clear, and nowhere in the cited source does it say this (I looked at the Gensler textbook and the pages cited just don't make this claim. The section is on the practical construction of arguments, not on arguments from authority and so doesn't say that these arguments if negated wouldn't be contradictory.

Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur as the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.[23][24]

Harder to tell what the citation is here. One is a reference to a collection of essays on logic from the 1880's, but with no page cited. I searched the book for any occurrence of either "authority" or "verecundiam" and found none. I can't find a copy of the other book online, but again, we don't have a page citation here, and due to the sloppy citation in the rest of this section, I'm not confident that this is a correct interpretation.

However, again, I'll point out that the claim being made here, that arguments from authority can't be deductively valid is false. I proved this in my first note on why I deleted this section. So, to sum up, this section nowhere cites any discussion of the argument from authority. Instead, it cites some general textbooks on the nature of logical arguments. The actual statements on the nature of logical arguments are unnecessarily jargon-laden and unclear. Then, these statements, purely on the editors own authority, are claimed to somehow be inconsistent with arguments from authority. This is not demonstrated or cited. So the section should be removed.Original Position (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

While I am otherwise in agreement with you, I must point out that appeals to authority are not sound in a deductive argument, because a sound deductive argument is one in which the premises are true (and -of course- the conclusions is certain).

However, (and this is the crux of my argument above), appeals to authority are inductively and abductively valid, when the authority being cited is an expert in the field in question. I don't think the section you removed (which has since been restored) needs to go, but I agree wholeheartedly that the lead needs to be changed to more accurately reflect the sources, and the section on formal logic needs to be re-written to better reflect the sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Soundness is not the correct standard to use in evaluating fallacies in deductive logic. There we are strictly concerned with formal fallacies, which are about validity rather than soundness. It is of course true that a valid deductive argument can be unsound, or can even exhibit an informal fallacy, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is deductively valid. I think this section is misleading and should be deleted because it is clearly meant to refer to deductive logic (i.e. formal fallacies), but the appeal to inappropriate authority fallacy is an informal fallacy. It is factually false in claiming that it is always fallacious to appeal authority in a deductive argument. Original Position (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. Not being a philosopher myself, I sometimes misuse terms and concepts. I agree with what you are saying completely, excepting that I believe if the lead of the article were better, then that section could remain, with an extensive re-write (which I attempted, but was reverted on). Might I ask that you weight in at the AN/I post and dredge up some sources from any reputable material you may have access to? It would go a long way towards correcting this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Article not reflecting its sources

In all of the sources I have been able to check which are used to define this term (as well as a wide variety of other reliable sources not cited in the article), it is specified that no informal fallacy is committed when the authority in question is a legitimate authority on the subject in question. Yet the only place this information appears in this article is in the notes for the sources 2 and 3. Is there a good reason for this? If not, both the lead and several places throughout the article need to be edited to accurately reflect this, and I will do so shortly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Look at all the examples of the appeal. They were all to what would be called legitimate authorities, but wound up being fallacious because the authorities were wrong. The appeal to authority is right when its right but wrong when its wrong, so its like circular reasoning or an ad hominem: it doesn't actually provide any evidence for the claim. Plenty of sources on the page state this, and discuss why each form of the argument listed is fallacious. Appeals to authority wind up being circular reasoning, like the page says. The issue is that while its not automatically wrong to appeal to authorities, it doesn't actually provide evidence that your claim is correct. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

My point is that it's not an informal fallacy unless the authority appealed to is not a legitimate authority. Just because an argument is wrong doesn't make it a fallacy. There's a difference between validity and soundness. Valid arguments can be unsound, and invalid arguments may have sound conclusions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't most any use of it fall under one of the forms in the article? Each one has sources and a sourced example or argument for why its fallacious FL or Atlanta (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, most uses of "authority X says Y, so Y must be true" would fall under the examples given. But that's not an overwhelming majority. For instance "Over 99% of all biologists agree that evolution is a fact, therefore evolution is almost certainly a fact," is not an informal fallacy. All of science and education is based upon the assumption that experts are correct more often than not, and all of the technology we have, as well as the skill gap between experts and non-experts in every possible set of skills stands as evidence that this assumption is correct. It's even logically sound to argue that learning about a subject grants more knowledge about a subject. After all, no-one attends college only to find that they're expected to teach themselves all of mathematics, history, literature, composition and the sciences through trial-and-error, with no reference material. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That falls under "General". Its no different from the old argument that most medical scientists believed the fevers were caused by an environmental factor, therefore it was concluded that was almost certainly a fact. The only evidence is the evidence. If the authorities believe what they do based off of evidence, then that evidence is where any authority would really be. If they don't believe what they do because of evidence, then their beliefs are not evidence based and thus carry no weight. To say otherwise has lead to circular reasoning in the past, with, as the article says, very severe consequences. FL or Atlanta (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You're debating the definition, which isn't in question. The definition is clearly given by the sources, which do not match the article. My question was why the article does not reflect its sources. If there is no reason other than the philosophical musings of Wikipedians, then it needs to change. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Allow me to quote the second source: "Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument." Where in the article is this even hinted at? Because I find find numerous passages in the article which directly contradict this. The examples chosen even seem to be hand-picked to refute this. That is not how WP is supposed to work. Also, check out the blatant irony of source #9. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The second source was recently added, and it looks like there was a lot of contention over it. We can remove it to make the page consistent - it doesn't look particularly reliable since its just a random website about logical fallacies. Aside from that the page looks consistent to me - it cites sources for the fallacy and gives evidence and examples. The quote the article ends with really hits home why its a fallacy and what leads to it. Also, do you disagree with what I said: "If the authorities believe what they do based off of evidence, then that evidence is where any authority would really be. If they don't believe what they do because of evidence, then their beliefs are not evidence based and thus carry no weight"? If you do disagree, why? And if you agree, then what basis is there for saying it isn't a fallacy? FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, contrary to the claim that "All of science and education is based upon the assumption that experts are correct more often than not", we have reliable sources like http://www.nomads.usp.br/pesquisas/design/objetos_interativos/arquivos/restrito/umpleby_science_cybernetics.pdf presented at the conference on Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and Science. Its a scholarly work on the history and philosophy of science and it notes that "Scientific statements can be falsified, non-scientific statements cannot be. This idea, and the previous idea of verification through resort to experiment, has had a beneficent effect on social systems. Through the idea of experimentation, science became a means of establishing knowledge other than by coercion or arguments based on appeals to authority, faith, or supernaturalism. This idea liberated the scientific community...". If appeals to authority were, as you're arguing, the cornerstone of science, then why do we have scholars of the philosophy of science describing going away from appeals to authority as "beneficial" and a "liberation"? FL or Atlanta (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you missed the irony of appealing to an authority to refute my contention that appealing to authorities is a valid method of argument. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing number 9 because it has absolutely no business in this article. Also, try the following as reliable sources:

• Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. - UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center
• Appeal to Authority:
     the authority is not an expert in the field
     experts in the field disagree
     the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious - Stephen Downes, by way of a Stanford University handout
• Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority. - Lander University Philosophy Department
• Appeal to Authority: Not always fallacious, but always something a critical thinker must consider. It is where you are asked to accept something as true based upon the word of an expert (authority). The main question is, "Are they really an expert?" Perhaps they're not an expert in that field, perhaps they've got an ax to grind, or perhaps they are being paid by someone. Foothill College
• The fallacy of irrelevant authority is committed when you accept without proper support for his or her alleged authority, a person's claim or proposition as true. Alleged authorities should only be used when the authority is reporting on his or her field of expertise, the authority is reporting on facts about which there is some agreement in his or her field, and you have reason to believe he or she can be trusted. Alleged authorities can be individuals or groups. The attempt to appeal to the majority or the masses is a form of irrelevant authority. The attempt to appeal to an elite or select group is a form of irrelevant authority. Texas State Department of Philosophy

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll talk about the other sources in a moment, but before any changes get made, citation 9 is good - he's a historian and Medieval scholar who's published on Medieval arms and armor. He makes the point in the video of how you can't simply appeal to scholars and assume its correct - you need the actual historical evidence. Videos are valid sources as long as its a reliable source. FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. He is not a reliable source for this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have read it, I’m very familiar with the guidelines. Do you disagree with any of the reasons I gave for why it’s a reliable source? Nothing said in the video is even controversial.

As far as appealing to authority to discuss appeals to authority, the irony isn’t lost on me. But the real irony is that authorities say the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, so if the appeal isn’t a fallacy then it would be proven that it’s a fallacy! Its ultimately self-defeating. But do you have any response to the meat of what I’m saying? That “If the authorities believe what they do based off of evidence, then that evidence is where any authority would really be. If they don't believe what they do because of evidence, then their beliefs are not evidence based and thus carry no weight”.

Now as far as the other sources go, it is true that some argue it isn’t a fallacy, but they are a minority among relevant philosophers. According to the book "Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science" by Christopher Hitchcock, on page 161 in my copy, it says "Of prime concern for the issue…are the rules that apply to the researchers themselves. A vocal minority effectively argue their own research transcends empiricism, stating that the public should accept their word by virtue of the fact that it came from one of their standing, and reject it only when others at their level do so. Though the ad verecundiam has such advocates, their expertise resides largely outside of the field of the philosophy of science…Philosophers of science remain in broad unanimity that it is the facts themselves that bring the proof. Those who use their position to express otherwise are…going against their own teachings by…disregarding the consensus of the field on which they speak."

So it seems like people in other professions sometimes say the appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy. But the consensus in philosophy of science, which is the most relevant specialization, is that it is indeed a fallacy. That seems to be why we get some mixed signals from some sources.

If you’d like, I could cite this section under the appeal to non-authorities form, and make a note of how its argued by some that appeals to authority are only fallacious in that particular form. Would that be an acceptable consensus? FL or Atlanta (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have read it, I’m very familiar with the guidelines. You must have missed the following parts, then:

• Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." (emphasis added) Note that youtube videos are self-published, and thus not the result of a reliable publication process. Which leads to the section on self-published sources.
• Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. (emphasis in original) A HEMA practitioner, even a well-respected one such as this one is not an established expert whose work in the field of logic or philosophy has been published by reliable third-party publications. Even by the overly broad interpretation of the subject of this article you are advocating, this is a completely improper source.

Note that both of those quotations are pulled from the Wikipedia policy page, not the guidelines page. Citing that source is a violation of WP policy. I am removing it again, and if you re-insert it we will take this to arbitration.

Now as far as the other sources go, it is true that some argue it isn’t a fallacy, but they are a minority among relevant philosophers. That is completely untrue. Virtually every single resource on the internet agrees that there is no fallacy in trusting the word of an established expert, with many of those resources coming from well established, reliable experts in the field. I limited the sources I provided above to educational institutes, but there are many more reliable sources available online. Even the very first source in this article mentions it. I can literally find dozens of reliable sources to state the caveat that appeals to legitimate expertise are not fallacious. You might be able to find a meager handful of sources which don't mention it, and maybe one or two that explicitly deny it. Even then, I doubt they would be very reliable.

According to the book "Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science" by Christopher Hitchcock, on page 161 in my copy, it says... That's strange. Because that passage appears nowhere in my copy, nor in the digital copy available online

So it seems like people in other professions sometimes say the appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy. I gave you multiple examples of philosophy, education and argumentation experts stating this. You gave me a false quote from a book and a martial artist's opinion.

If you’d like, I could cite this section under the appeal to non-authorities form, and make a note of how its argued by some that appeals to authority are only fallacious in that particular form. Would that be an acceptable consensus? No, because that would violate WP:UNDUE by diminishing an important caveat made by virtually every reliable source on the subject. An acceptable outcome is noting in the lead that it is not considered fallacious to rely upon legitimate expertise, and to alter the examples given so that they aren't exclusively drawn from cases where established experts were wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Like with last time, I'll address the stuff about citation 9 first. He is a published scholar, he co-wrote the book Swordsmen of the British Empire and has participated in projects translating Medieval documents on combat, according to http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/training/. That source also notes that his "formal educational background is a BA(hons) in Medieval Archaeology and History from University College London (UCL) in 2000, writing his final dissertation on the development of 13th and 14th century armour". So he is a published and credentialed historian. And, once again, what’s being said in the video isn’t controversial in the least. Also if I might ask, why are you in such a hurry to have the source removed? Talking about edit wars and arbitration and such. Isn't it better to remain calm and discuss the issue until a consensus can be reached? FL or Atlanta (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

So you're arguing that a degree in history makes one an expert in philosophy? Read below. We will deal with this through arbitration. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course not - I'm arguing it means he's a reliable source for the issue he's speaking about there. I did however move the citation to be for how authorities can fall into error, since that's a bit more like what he was speaking about. I also added the skepdic source. I think its very very early for arbitration - arbitration is a last resort, and we're making lots of progress in our discussion! The page has already improved. FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Examples of cited sources (and one cited author) flatly stating that not all appeals to authority are fallacious

For example, appealing to expert opinion could be reasonable if the field of the expert is appropriate, and other conditions are met. But, of course, as the logic texts have so often pointed out, such arguments can sometimes be fallacious appeal to authority.

— F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed, (2003) "Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations" [1](PDF). Artificial Intelligence and Law: 133.

---

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Basing a belief on what some authority says. A legitimate form of appeal to authority goes as follows:
      X holds that A is true.
      X is an authority on the subject.
      The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
      There is a presumption that A is true.
It is a fallacy if we appeal to someone who is not an authority on the subject, if the authorities widely disagree, or if we say something must be true (and is not just probably true) because authorities support it.

— Gensler, Harry J., (2010) The A to Z of Logic. Lanham, MD Scarecrow Press

Note that the preceding reference is not from the specific cited source (I don't have a copy of it), but from another book about the same subject, written by the same author at a later date.

---

Although appeals to authority can be erroneous, it must also be recognized that some appeals to authority can be reasonable and legitimate in argument. For example, suppose you have a toothache and you go to your dentist for advice. He replies as follows.

Example 7.0

This tooth is badly decayed, but not beyond repair. I propose to replace the decayed portion with a filling immediately.

Your dentist's advice in example 7.0 is the judgement of a suitably qualified expert in his field. In asking for his or her advice, therefore, you have appealed to an expert authority. However, it by no means follows that by acquiescing to his proposals you have committed a fallacy.

— Walton, Douglas, (2008) Informal Logic. London: Cambridge University Press

---

"For example, appealing to expert opinion could be reasonable if the field of the expert is appropriate, and other conditions are met. But, of course, as the logic texts have so often pointed out, such arguments can sometimes be fallacious appeal to authority."

And the question is: what other conditions must be met, and when it is sometimes fallacious?

The other conditions are that the opinion is backed up by evidence, and it is fallacious when the opinion itself is taken as the evidence.

"It is a fallacy if we appeal to someone who is not an authority on the subject, if the authorities widely disagree, or if we say something must be true (and is not just probably true) because authorities support it."

This source disagrees with all the others we’re seeing, makes no sense in light of the examples and arguments on the page, and it effectively contradicts itself. What is the real, practical difference between saying “if X then we must believe this is true” and saying “if X then we must assume this is true”?

He’s saying if these conditions arise, then you should automatically believe it. Yet he’s also saying its fallacious to say that if these conditions arise, then it is automatically true. What sense does that make? Its very bizarre and not what most philosophers would say.

"Although appeals to authority can be erroneous, it must also be recognized that some appeals to authority can be reasonable and legitimate in argument. For example, suppose you have a toothache and you go to your dentist for advice."

In what way is that “in argument”? If you challenge the dentist’s conclusion, then wouldn’t they show you the images of your rotten teeth that lead them to their belief they need to be fixed? Doctors almost always give the patients their test results, and I believe they’re required by law in many places to do so if you request it. Its that test that’s the evidence for your diagnosis. The doctor doesn’t magically form an opinion before he even sees you, it comes from evidence – whether that be something like the symptoms you describe or the results of the tests performed.

Also my apologies on my source, I extracted that from a discussion I had on this sort of topic with someone else and got my references jumbled. The proper reference is The Structure and Development of Science, edited by Gerard Radnitzsky. FL or Atlanta (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Essentially, all I am saying is what http://skepdic.com/authorty.html says: "The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief". FL or Atlanta (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I will file a request for arbitration after the weekend and we will let a volunteer from the arbitration committee help us reach a consensus. I have provided irrefutable evidence that the sources cited within this article all state a fact which is not reflected in this article. I have provided irrefutable evidence that numerous other reliable sources all state this same fact. You have demonstrated no willingness to concede even the most minor points, and I have no wish to turn this talk page into 6 megabytes of arguments about whether you, or literally every reliable expert we've referenced is correct. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually think we're having wonderful discussions and that this is going very well and the article is improving. I really think we're doing a good job working towards a consensus rather than having some sort of adversarial thing. But if you don't feel that way, wouldn't mediation be a better route? Arbitration is a last-resort when all else fails. Mediation is perfect for discussions like this that simply could use some extra input.

As far as the sources go, what I think might be going on is a misunderstanding. Based on your comments on my Talk page, you seem to be meaning "authority" in the general sense of "credence" (like with the mechanic or alarm clock) - that any appeal to a thing's credence is fallacious is false, I'd agree! All I'm saying is what the Skepdic source says: that "The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief" . Does that help clear things up at all? FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the page is misleading. It says that the argument from authority leads to a logical fallacy. "Logical" fallacies are typically understood to refer to formal fallacies (eg the wiki page for "logical fallacy" is redirected to the page for "formal fallacy.)" However, the argument from authority is an informal, not formal fallacy (see the wiki list of fallacies or logic textbooks).Original Position (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the page is downright and flatly wrong. It conflates the inductive processes of science with formal deductive logic and the three citations listed are B grade at best. It is a clear and overt attack on the validity of and respect for science, and it cannot stand as it is. Bjchip (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

References

section break for ease of editing

@Original Position: Thank you. I was truly beginning to think I was the only person here who understands the subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@FL or Atlanta: I'm quoting you out of order so as to provide a clear structure for my response.

All I'm saying is what the Skepdic source says: that "The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief" You've left out the very first sentence of that definition, which is indisputably the most important with regards to our discussion "The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority." (emphasis added). In fact, I am saying what the Skepdic source says, and you are arguing against it. Your argument is, quite literally, that the portions of all of the sources which disagree with your assertion should not be reflected in the article, because of the way you interpret other passages in those sources. That's not how WP is supposed to work, in fact that is a form of Original Research, which is explicitly banned by WP policy.

I actually think we're having wonderful discussions and that this is going very well and the article is improving. You've removed a reliable source because you disagreed with what it said, you've insisted upon keeping a source that does not meet WP's guidelines for reliable sources (which make it explicitly clear that the person need be an expert in the same subject as the article, not in a different subject), you've misquoted a source, you've added a source that constitutes original research in the context it's used in, you have consistently refused to debate the specific points I've raised, instead relying on debating the very meaning of the term (which would make the article itself guilty of being composed of original research if I step back and let you have your way), you've cherry picked sources, you've used the very tactic you are arguing to be invalid to make your case, and you have yet to concede even the most empirically demonstrable point: namely that the caveat I am arguing for does in fact appear in virtually every reliable source possible for this article.

Put yourself in my position for a moment. What would you do if you were clearly and demonstrably correct (it is a fact that virtually every source states this caveat, it is a fact that the article does not, and it is a fact that you have implicitly ceded that truth by engaging in that very form of logic yourself), yet another user insisted upon arguing with you every step of the way? What choice do I have, other than to get others involved to 'drown you out', so to speak? You clearly have not been swayed in the slightest by reasonable discussion, despite me making my case not just convincingly, but factually. You may think we're getting somewhere, but we aren't. The article is demonstrably worse by WP's objective standards now than it was when I first posted to this talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

“The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority”

Well of course - no one disagrees with that. Clearly an appeal to authority isn’t valid if its not even an authority to begin with. This form gets a lot of attention since its arguably the most common - "Mr. X is smart when it comes to Y, so listen to what he has to say about Z!". You see it everyday in advertisements and hear it a lot in discussions.

That is one form of it the page discusses, an appeal to non-authorities. I can add some more about this on the page under the appropriate form! Would giving more weight to that make the page more agreeable to you? You are right that this is an important aspect the page doesn't discuss enough.

However, that’s just one aspect of the appeal. Ultimately, since “The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief”, any appeal to authority rather than evidence will be fallacious.

Like it says, the only time it would make sense is on an issue you know nothing about, when you can presume that whoever you’re quoting “believe it because there is strong evidence in support of it”.

But that would be a fallacy in scientific or argumentative reasoning (which is what the page specifies), because it also fails if “the subject is controversial”. If there is an argument about an issue, then it is by definition controversial.

The appeal to authority is something you might use as a crutch, but it can never be a pillar in of itself, if that makes sense.

“Your argument is, quite literally, that the portions of all of the sources which disagree with your assertion should not be reflected in the article”

My argument is that the sources say what I’m saying, which we’ve seen is the case so far in each instance.

“You've removed a reliable source because you disagreed with what it said”

When was that?

“which make it explicitly clear that the person need be an expert in the same subject as the article”

A thing needs to be a reliable source for the fact its being cited for. If the fact is relevant and helpful, and the source is reliable for it, then the source is relevant and helpful.

“you've misquoted a source”

Which was an accident, and which was corrected by another editor. That’s why no Wikipedia article can be a one man show: everything needs to be checked.

“you have consistently refused to debate the specific points I've raised”

If there’s something I haven’t addressed, it wasn’t intentional – I always try to address all the points that get made. If I do miss something please tell me, it’s a genuine oversight rather than a refusal.

”You clearly have not been swayed in the slightest by reasonable discussion, despite me making my case not just convincingly, but factually.”

How can I be convinced if you end discussions early out of impatience or frustration? Like on my Talk for example. --> FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This is pointless. I'm opening a case for mediation. You don't seem to care one bit about being right or wrong, only about winning the argument. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say its pointless at all! I just gave more weight to the issue you pointed out. That is an aspect that needed - and still needs, I'd say - more coverage on the page. I'd be happy to participate in mediation if you want, but personally I don't think there's even really a disagreement that needs mediating - the page is progressing! Slowly, but its good to take care with edits. Always better if they grow slow and strong like a tree, rather than being like a cheap shack that keeps getting pieces stuck on and torn off and modified with abandon.

Also I may be gone for a few days coming up - I should be here tomorrow but might be gone for about a week after Thursday. FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)