Jump to content

Talk:Argument from authority/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 12

Resolving the chromosomes dispute

Hello everybody,

This is a very long discussion here on this Talk; lots of disagreement. I think though by focusing on what is agreed upon, the discussion can move fluidly.

All involved are in agreement arguments from authority took place and were the main driving factor. That would make this, of course, an example of argument from authority. Given the number of sources discussing it, that would also make it undoubtedly a notable one.

So the question should no longer be about including the example; all agree it is one and the sources show it is notable. A more useful direction to take would be how the example should read such that it would satisfy all parties involved.

So User:Lord Mondegreen, User:Perfect Orange Sphere, User:FL or Atlanta, User:Mjolnir_Pants, what wording of this example would you be all alright with having on the page? TheLogician112 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I do not agree that there is no question about including the example. And I've given reasons why it should not be included, reasons that hold even if there are reliable sources indicating that the case provides an example of appeals to authority. Those reasons have largely been ignored in the discussion here, but until that issue is resolved, there absolutely is a question about including the example. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean, User:Lord Mondegreen, to put words in your mouth or imply you had no qualms about the example; I was stating that the only way for a resolution is to include it and have all participate in deciding the precise wording. All agree there were such arguments here; are those not examples? TheLogician112 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ditto what Mondegreen said. I am not even remotely convinced that this is an example and the most I've said to that effect was that there have been some individual appeals to Painter's authority. That is a far cry from suggesting I agree that this is one. In addition, the majority of editors participating in this discussion do not want this included at all. I think it's time to stop playing at being a moderator. Either state your own views or recuse yourself from this discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes and would not those individual appeals be examples? What a majority wants is often not what happens. I am sure none however want this endless argument to continue. There is not a strong enough majority to disregard them fully; what we must think about is what both sides could live with. I am not "playing at" being anything;these views are my own - to include the example and have input from all in its final form. This is the only way forward. TheLogician112 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You should start using accepted indentation for your talk page comments. It helps with the flow.
I already said once I'd be fine with citing the specific example of a researcher claiming he had to force his count to reach 48, so long as other examples were included. But that wasn't good enough for the two pushing it. Also, when a clear majority of people don't want something on the page, it should not be added. The Genesis creation narrative is not called the "Genesis creation myth" because the majority of people don't like "myth," even though that is the scholarly accepted term. Popularity isn't everything, but it absolutely matters. I can see in your edit history that you don't have a lot of experience editing Wikipedia. If you are willing to take some advice, then take this: Don't try telling more experienced editors how WP works. For all of us, the way we think WP works when we have less than 50 edits is very different than how it actually works. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Mondegreen:, @Perfect Orange Sphere:, @FL or Atlanta:, @Mjolnir Pants:, @TheLogician112: and ThePlatypusofDoom: Guys/Gals: Rather than continuing to edit-war over the Chromosome example, [1], [2], how about you work collaboratively to make an RfC, one from both sides, and let the community weigh in? Otherwise the admin. below may come back and rather than page protect may additionally block or even topic-ban some of you. I might be willing to help in creating that RfC. (P.S. I am not suggesting that everyone tagged is edit-warring--I did not look carefully. I tagged those who have been discussing.) Some effort at collaboration is necessary. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

ThePlatypussofDoom, based on his edit history, is just going around deleting all the stuff mentioned on the fringe theories noticeboard. This is just an echo of the dispute - the example clearly isn't fringe given the number of respectable sources that mention it. FL or Atlanta (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Horrifying

As a mathematical scientist, I am stunned and horrified by this article. It is not a description of the Appeal to Authority fallacy, it is a defence of the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

The article misrepresents what a logical fallacy is. It is reasonably if inarticulately defined in fallacy as, "the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves"[1] in the construction of an argument.". A fallacy is not an argument that reaches an incorrect conclusion and it is not an argument with incorrect premises.

The following argument is wrong but not fallacious:

1. If it is dark at night, the sun revolves around the earth. 2. It is dark at night. C. The sun revolves around the earth.

It follows correctly from its premises, but premise 1. is incorrect.

The following argument is correct but fallacious:

1. If the earth rotates on its axis, it could be dark at night. 2. It is dark at night. C. The earth rotates on its axis.

All premises and conclusion are correct but this argument is fallacious because it does not exclude other possibilities for why it is dark at night; the correct conclusion does not follow from the correct premises.

The following argument is also correct but fallacious:

1. Most experts agree that the earth revolves around the sun. C. The earth revolves around the sun.

Bizarrely the article actually illustrates itself that experts can and have been wrong even on fundamental matters relating to their own area of expertise, with the example of the miscounting of chromosomes.

Given its protected status, and the unstated interests involved here (Wikipedia's editorial policy is based to a great extent on "appeal to authority", for instance), I will not attempt to edit the article myself, but leave as a record on the talk page that this article deceives its reader by incorrectly describing what it claims to describe. 92.214.206.250 (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I see with weary resignation but little surprise that above this comment there is a long discussion about removing the example, the only damn thing the article does right. If only there were such a lot of effort removing or heavily revising the rest of the text! 92.214.206.250 (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes the article and Talk page are a travesty. It is ridiculous that about the only thing actually illustrating the fallacy on the page had to have such a massive debate. Hopefully someone cleans it up soon. I don't think I want to touch an article that explodes so violently at the slightly touch though. There needs to be a new class of UserFauna: the EOD for people who'd go near this thing. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
How is the article "protected"?
I had a similar reaction to the article. Please see the discussion here. I still dislike the way it is written for reasons described in this section. I had a long discussion with those who have defended its current form, and I understand their view. The version you give is the "strong form", and that's the way I tend to think of it too. However, Philosophy books--including the one I studied from--say that in normal life we do rely on authorities to make decisions and this does not make us uncritical thinkers. So, the Philosophy books talk about fallacies of appealing to an authority in the wrong field, appealing to an authority who holds a disputed view, etc. I am not going to speculate on how all Philosophy books treat this, but I know I did give an example of RS where the strong form is mentioned. To me the solution is to give better treatment to the strong form. I suggested an RfC about it and would love to see that happen. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I have improved it somewhat by looking through prior versions. A lot of rather unnecessary detail based on (and in fact mostly about - who cares about in-depth discussions of what random philosophers have said????) obscure sources had been added. I like the way the page is now. It quotes a well-known scientist right at the beginning, gives an actual summary of what an argument from authority is rather than give weird "well this philosopher nobody's ever heard of says they run like this, and this other guy says they run like this...", the history section notes that the argument has both its defenders and detractors and that views on it shift throughout time, and then it goes into a very informative example and an interesting discussion of the thinking behind the argument and how our minds tend to handle it. Excellent if I do say so myself! 209.188.51.125 (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Importance of Independence

It seems important to clarify that an appeal to an expert is only valid if that expert is independent of the issue being discussed. Conversely, if even a true expert has a vested interest in the outcome of the topic being debated, then an appeal to this expert is invalid. --Lbeaumont (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lbeaumont: Makes perfect sense. Sounds exactly correct. However, my opinion and yours about the matter is irrelevant. It has to be in the RS. Have you seen it there? It's been a while since I looked at the RS or the current version of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
That's absolutely untrue. There is no such thing as an expert independent of their field. Capeo (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Lbeaumont did not say that the expert had to be "independent of their field". S/he said that the expert should not have a "vested interest" in the "outcome of the topic being debated". Consider Wernher von Braun's opinions of the rocket projects he worked on both under the Nazi's and the U.S. An excellent example of the problem of vested interest when Chinese officials inflated production estimates to please their bosses: Great_Chinese_Famine#Government_distribution_policies. They were authorities, but they could not be counted on to be honest, because of their vested interest. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Fallacy or Valid Argument

There seems to be a long-running edit-war over whether Appeal to Authority is a fallacy or a valid argument. See [3]. Edits like this are very problematic as they change the entire nature of the article's meaning and focus.

It seems to me it might be BOTH:

In sum, Charles Hamblin states, “Historically speaking, argument from authority has been mentioned in lists of valid argument-forms as often as in lists of Fallacies.” Charles Hamblin, Fallacies (London: Methuen Publishing, Ltd., 1970).[1]
  1. ^ http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

If this back and forth keeps going on I might end up launching an RfC to resolve it.

I am also a bit troubled by how much the article has changed from work by philosophers to quotes from scientists. This article is clearly the subject of Philosophy and not science. I'm not convinced this series of edits was an improvement to the article. Use of Google and Google Scholar indicate that Hamblin was a major player in philosophy. The work in question, "Fallacies" is cited by 1514 [4]. He is not an "obscure" philosopher.

I am going to try to keep an eye on this article.

I might revert back to an older version that mentioned Hamblin, but I am torn what do to about this edit. I might use the above reference that quotes Hamblin to justify calling it both a fallacy -and- a valid form of argument (as is done here on "rational" wiki), but I welcome feedback before proceeding.

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Having stopped editing this article over a pair of other editors endlessly disagreeing with the RSs over this very issue, I've recently come back just to take a look at what happened after I left. Frankly, I'm disgusted by the current state. There are NO Reliable Sources about this subject which clearly identify an argument from authority as a logical fallacy, full stop. Yet this article does just that. In every single case, the argument is identified as an argument. Arguments are not always valid, but they are always arguments. Simply because an argument can be fallacious does not make it a fallacy by default.
For example, consider the Argument from analogy. One could quite rationally argue that because a hostile takeover in business is similar to a military invasion, another similarity between them would be that there are three possible results: A full takeover, a failure of the takeover, or a partial takeover, just as a full annexation, a failed annexation and a partial annexation are the possible results of an invasion. That would be a perfectly valid argument from analogy. However, if one then posits that because the two are similar, and because soldiers usually fight and die in a military invasion, that employees will fight and die in a hostile takeover, that would be a fallacious use of the argument. There's no debate whatsoever about this, however. That's because the internet hasn't popularized "That's just an argument from analogy!" as a pseudo-intellectual 'gotcha' the way it has popularized "that's just an appeal to authority!"
I personally feel that as long as WP is full of neckbearded pseudo-intellectuals who can't be bothered to actually learn about the subjects they feel they already know so much about, we're going to continue to see these problems. I've had admins involved who've issued bans over this, I've documented straight up lies and dishonesty on the part of those wishing to identify this as nothing but a fallacy, and I've refuted them over and over again. All to no avail. I honestly have no idea what to do with this level of sheer dishonesty and ignorance, which is why I stopped editing. So for now, all I can do is offer you moral support in your efforts to fix this page full of crap. If you can find enough honest editors to establish (and maintain, because this has been established time and time again) a consensus that the page will reflect the reliable sources, I'll throw my hat back in. But as long as it's just me and one or two others fighting against the tide of ignorant bullshit, I'm not going to waste my time. Honestly, I don't think anything will get accomplished outside of ArbCom and a new set of DSs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I used to edit Wikipedia years ago and am returning to comment on this. Since I've been away so long and forgotten formatting, this comment may come out improperly formatted, so please fix that if so. I have a bachelor degree in philosophy. I believe the confusion and debate over this topic is mainly due to a lack of understanding of the definition of "appeal to authority."
MjolnirPants writes, There are NO Reliable Sources about this subject which clearly identify an argument from authority as a logical fallacy, full stop. I can probably find some sources in peer-reviewed philosophy journals, but it looks like this article is an exercise in futility in trying to justify basic philosophy to people who don't understand it. If people really want me to, though, I can see if I can find those sources.
MjolnirPants writes, Simply because an argument can be fallacious does not make it a fallacy by default. I totally disagree. Again, this sounds like a misunderstanding of how logical fallacies are defined. When an argument meets the definition of the relevant fallacy, it is always a fallacy. Just like an object that meets the definition of a rectangle is always a rectangle, regardless of whether it's also a square.
MjolnirPants writes, That's because the internet hasn't popularized "That's just an argument from analogy!" as a pseudo-intellectual 'gotcha' the way it has popularized "that's just an appeal to authority!" Because argument from analogy is NOT a logical fallacy, while appeal to authority IS. If an argument from analogy takes the fallacious form, then it's called a "weak analogy," a fallacy whose definition is apparently missing from Wikipedia.
Going back to the topic of this article, if a person cites an expert's opinion as evidence for the truth of a claim, then that is not a fallacy. However, if a person says that an expert's opinion is PROOF that a claim is true, that therefore it MUST BE TRUE, or simply that it IS true, then that is always a logical fallacy. It's that simple...unless someone can name at least one example of the latter form not being fallacious (i.e. the expert is always right). And even the former, though somewhat logical, is a logically weak argument.Chris Dubey (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah Pants' argument is very misguided. He's basically saying "some sorts of arguments are wrong sometimes therefore all sorts of arguments are only wrong sometimes". His analogy about analogies is like some sort of weird metafallacy. Overall excellent reply Mr. Dubney! 2607:FB90:2B0C:45A0:703F:CAA0:206A:ABAE (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Ha ha, thank you. Not to mention that his/her use of "neckbearded pseudo-intellectuals" is an example of ad hominem. Chris Dubey (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I want to further illustrate a problem with the reasoning put forth by MjolnirPants, using analogy.
MjolnirPants says, Simply because an argument can be fallacious does not make it a fallacy by default. Huh. Well, then...
Simply because water can be composed of H2O molecules does not mean it's composed of H2O molecules by default. Sometimes water may be composed of nitrogen atoms.
Simply because some butterflies are insects does not mean all butterflies are insects. Some butterflies may actually be mammals.
Simply because some humans are apes does not make all humans apes by default. Some humans may instead be cetaceans.
Chris Dubey (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I cannot begin to express how fundamentally flawed and ignorant the logic used above is. This is precisely why I'm disgusted by this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If my logic is flawed, MjolnirPants, then explain how it is flawed. Simply calling it that doesn't show anything. Here's a word of advice for you: If you want to grow as a critical thinker, then you need to stop clinging to your naive belief that the experts you admire so much are necessarily trustworthy. History is full of examples of experts being wrong or even downright dishonest, both long ago and in the recent past. If you need examples, I'll happily provide. Oh and by the way, if you still want to engage in arguments from authority, just remember I have a degree in philosophy, magna cum laude. Why don't you tell me how what I said is illogical? Where is your substance? All you seem to have are empty accusations and ad hominem attacks. Why don't you stop calling other people ignorant and realize that you are throwing stones while living in a glass house. Chris Dubey (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No. It would be a phenomenal waste of time and energy. Even if you were eager to learn, explaining everything would take a wall of text. Forget I said anything and do whatever you want to this article. I'm done here. By the way, that was a brilliant example of a fallacious appeal to authority you just made, there. Claiming to have a degree in philosophy. Ha! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could show you my degree or the old college page on the University of Hartford philosophy department Website that showed me winning an award in the College of Arts & Sciences in 2005, in which I was one of only 2 students who won it. Call me whatever you want, while failing to show anything. But here's a page briefly listing my academic history. Unfortunately, the link to Examiner.com no longer works, as the site went down in 2016.

http://www.madinamerica.com/author/cdubey/

Here's a copy of a philosophy department award I won in 2003 at the University of Hartford.

https://app.box.com/s/k11dj9hywgi75ahp9h27mdk418faamw7

Here's an issue of the U. of Hartford alumni newsletter. I'm mentioned in the 2005 alumni section, on page 31, for winning an award in biotechnology while working on my second undergraduate degree, at Middlesex Community College in Connecticut.

https://www.hartford.edu/observer/files/pdf/winter-2010/winter10_alumni.pdf

Chris Dubey (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Harry Gensler, Doug Walton, John Bire, Harvey Siegel, Merrilee Salmon, Edwin Coleman, John Locke, the Texas State University Department of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy all apparently are wrong (not to mention the more tangential sources in that link, plus every single work in the field of philosophy cited in the article as it currently exists). Meanwhile, you; the gentleman who claims to have degrees in both English and Philosophy, yet can't puzzle out what the subject in my sentence referencing ignorance above (which, you may note, I have struck) was, nor argue that the appeal to authority is a fallacy without appealing to his own authority in a way that would be fallacious even if I were correct (which I am) are right. Sure thing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I haven't familiarized myself with the opinions of all those thinkers regarding their definitions of appeals to authority. But I am confident that there are multiple philosophers who disagree with what you allege they say constitutes the fallacy. I do not merely claim to have degrees in these fields. I have them. Again you call me ignorant, yet you fail to explain why. I'm supposed to "puzzle out" your argument and your reasoning--how does that make sense? You may enjoy hastily jumping to conclusions, like using arguments from authority, but I don't. And when did I ever appeal to my own authority? I mentioned my degree as an ironic reply to you, yet I never claimed that it was proof of the correctness of my opinion. Therefore, saying I committed the fallacy when I didn't is really a Straw man. It really worries me that there are unstated interests trying to undermine this article and that you are involved with them. At the least, you've been really condescending. E.g. Saying I must not really have a philosopy degree, because my philosophy disagrees with yours or with what you perceive to be a majority opinion. You've repeatedly violated the Wikipedia policy against personal attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
You write that "every single work in the field of philosophy cited in the article as it currently exists" supports your view of what constitutes argument from authority. Yet in looking at the sources of the article, I see some books and very few articles from peer-reviewed philosophy journals. The types of sources are dubious and appear to be prone to Cherry picking and selection bias. Chris Dubey (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. Let's try "Simply because some butterflies are insects green does not mean all butterflies are insects green. Some butterflies may actually be mammals yellow. That seems to work fine. And, obviously, it's true that some arguments are fallacious while others are not. I think you will find that "Some A's are B's. x is an A. Therefore x is a B" is one of the standard fallacies.JQ (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

article. Chris Dubey (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, John Quiggin. Yes, that argument comes out correct, but it's examining a fundamentally different property of the butterflies. Your argument is true about their color--butterflies can differ in color, but so is mine--that all butterflies are insects. It's a fundamentally different property. Color regards a phenotype that can differ by individuals. Yet by taxonomic definitions, all butterflies are insects. And so my analogy is relevant to the logical fallacy of argument from authority--because it relates to their fundamental definitions. Arguments from authority can differ in what they are trying to claim--e.g. global warming, the weather, the growth rate of an animal, and by the types of experts making the claims, etc.--but arguments from authority, when defined under the syllogism regarding their fallacious form, are the same in that way. (This form: Authority A is correct. Authority A says claim Y is true. Therefore, Y is true.) This syllogism underlies a basic definition of appeal to authority.
Thus, the example I used is quite different from the example you used. Fallacy of composition applies to your example about butterfly color, but it doesn't apply to my example about butterflies' taxonomy as insects. Meaning the fallacy isn't universally true, and doesn't necessarily apply to how arguments are classified.
To clarify, I'm not saying that the fallacy is completely wrong. It appears the definition of the fallacy is inadequate in accurately describing it and how it occurs, under what circumstances.
To further clarify, this finding does not mean that all logical fallacies are only conditionally true. (Saying that would itself be an example of fallacy of composition!) Some logical fallacies may still be true always, universally. This is a problem of accurately defining the fallacies. Chris Dubey (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

New Source

I went to a library today and examined some books on philosophical logic. Here is what I found.

It seems now to me that the underlying problem is that "argument from authority" (or whatever synonym you use for it) is not a homogeneous type of argument. It can take a variety of differing forms. Not all of those forms may be illogical. But it's important to note that the terms "logical," "fallacy," "appeal," and "authority" are abstract terms whose meanings can vary based on the subjective definitions used for them. I still consider some forms of this fallacy to be always illogical.

Anyway, I plan to soon add a reference to one of the books I found, a guidebook on philosophical logic, authored by multiple philosophy professors. I'm rusty on the guidelines of editing references, but I'll do what I can and other editors can clean it up if there are problems.

I just added the new source and reference, using a simple format for the source. I had a bad Cite book template, but I finally got it right. Chris Dubey (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that "argumentum ad auctoritatem" (accusativus) is the (alternative) Latin name, instead of "argumentum ad authoritate" (which sounds a bit Latinesque, but isn't Latin at all), I do not trust you source or your ability to interpret it. Your addition basically repeats what was said earlier in the article. The widely accepted phrase is still "ad verecundiam". Kleuske (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I found a source through Google scholar which uses "ad authoritate" as a name for appeal to authority. The Three Rs of Teaching Logic: Revelation, Relevance, and Reinforcement

Covel, Robert C. English Journal, High school edition 99.6 (Jul 2010): 47-50.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22ad+authoritate%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C7&as_sdtp=
Using Google translate to translate the phrase "argumentum ad authoritate" to English results in the English phrase "argument from authority."
https://translate.google.com/#auto/en/argumentum%20ad%20authoritate
I seem to recall you have defended other sources here as reliable, yet you don't give any clear reason to support your distrust of the one I added and its citation. The citation does not merely repeat the definitions of the other sources, but adds conditions--such as that an authority should have "adequate justification for their views" in order for appealing to that authority to be non-fallacious. I do not agree with your removal and will undo it. I do not trust your interpretation is fair, as you've not given evidence of having consulted the full source yourself. Chris Dubey (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Update. Sorry about saying you defended other sources here. Apparently I mixed up a comment from another editor on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The source I first added had nothing to do with the Latin term I inserted. That first source was cited for definitions that add conditions to the meaning of argument from authority, which I explained above. It's a book authored by multiple philosophy professors, whose biographies can be found on the Amazon description of the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Schaums-Outline-Logic-Revised-Outlines/dp/0071777539/
As for the Latin terms, Google Translate translates both "argumentum ad auctoritatem" and "argumentum ad authoritate" as having the same meaning: argument from authority. I added another source that supports the Latin term "argumentum ad authoritate." Chris Dubey (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It may be in use, somewhere. But that's not really the point. You start with that term, which is a rather unusual one.
Starting the article with that term gives undue weight to a rather unusual term. Kleuske (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems I need to correct this and query for "argumentum ad so-and-so"...

Also. I followed the link you provided and it's about pedagogic tips by a teacher on how to teach. That does not seem the best of sources. Kleuske (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Changing the order does not change anything. The term is hardly used. It has no place whatsoever in the lede, let alone in the first line. Kleuske (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I am unsure of how good the source is, but it does look like it's published in a peer-reviewed journal. I have downloaded the entire paper through an account I have with full access. You're right that the paper is about pedagogic tips, but it's about pedagogic tips specifically about teaching logic. But I won't dispute if you remove that term.
But a problem I see with the Latin term is that although "argumentum ad verecundiam" may be the most common term, it appears to be used with different meanings, sometimes narrowly describing only a particular form of appeal to authority. And I don't see a source cited in the article to support a definition of that term.
I know one uncited source that refers to "argumentum ad verecundiam" as "argument from inappropriate authority". According to that author's definition, this term really only refers to that, not to appeal to authority in general.
If you want to add a source to support the definition/usage of "argumentum ad verecundiam," go ahead. Maybe the citation should also say that there are differing usages of the term. Chris Dubey (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Chris Dubey, Kleuske is correct. We don't provide translations into other languages in the lede unless the translation is widely used. The very rarely used Latin versions of the term that you found seem to be merely back-formations, obscure and therefore in this case irrelevant and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia should definitely not imply in Wikipedia's voice that these uncommon Latin usages are in any way common. Softlavender (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I wasn't going to post back here, but something Chris said at ANI made me take a look at the edit. The obscure latin (or pseudo-latin, if Kleuske is correct) doesn't belong, but I really can't find anything wrong with the second part of that edit (that shows up under the "Line 12" section of the diff. I don't see any reason that part needs to go, and in fact, I'm putting it back in, now. Apologies to all if this kicks off more edit warring, but I haven't seen any discussion of that part of his edit on the talk page, so I'm not seeing any consensus to remove it. To be perfectly honest, I've seen Chris trying to bring it up, and being more or less ignored. Regarding the reliability of the source, it is published by McGraw-Hill, and written by John Nolt, Dennis Rohatyn and Achille Varzi. I'm pretty sure that's reliable.
Also, I wanted to say that I believe Chris's logic was much better than I characterized it. He seemed (in retrospect) to be under the impression that the appeal was defined as a fallacy. Hence why he chose definitive qualities in his analogies. In that light, his arguments are much more sensible (although I still think bringing up one's own qualifications online is an extremely poor tactic). He seems to be aware that this is not the case, now. I have already struck my comments above, however in light of how I currently see Chris' perspective, I'd like to offer an unreserved apology: If I am right that you thought this was defined as a fallacy, then you were correct at ANI that we both misunderstood each other, and your counterarguments were only flawed in that they rested upon a flawed premise. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks MjolnirPants. The point (one of the points) was that "ad authoritate" just isn't Latin. Neither of the two dictionaries I consulted lists "authoritas" and the grammatical conjugation simply isn't correct. Both dictionaries, however, list "auctoritas" and that phrase has the accusativus that goes after "ad". Just to be clear, I do not advocate for "ad auctoritatem". It's used, sometimes, but "ad verecundiam" is the broadly accepted (Latin) phrase, AFAICS. Kleuske (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC) .
All right, everyone. I apologize for being disruptive and for my misunderstandings also. Your apologies accepted also. I am not a very experienced editor and only returned recently to Wikipedia. I will try to be more careful in the future and I will take a look at the guideline pages that have been linked for me. I appreciate that the McGraw-Hill book is remaining as a source. Chris Dubey (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kleuske: I agree with you about "ad authoritate". Even Chris seems to accept what you're saying, and only to be responding "Well, it's used in this reliable source." I think what we have here is a classic case of an obscure term: Sure, it's legit, but it's so rare that us using it here would be proscriptive, not descriptive. So I think everyone's okay with that phrase being left out.
@Chris Dubey: Don't worry about it at all. I would like to offer you one word of advice though, if I could. Don't ever trust the article. We work hard to make WP as accurate as we can, and one of the best ways to do that is to question everything we produce. If it's good, it'll survive being questioned. If it's bad, it will get changed. But if we believe what the article has to say? Well, then there's no point to editing it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sagan

What Sagan wrote here is very elementary stuff. Any scientist who does not know this is grossly incompetent. And Sagan, as a popularizer, knew how to say it. When you claim that Sagan was not an expert on this, you are saying that he was not competent to do his own job as a scientist.

By the way, Galileo used to emphasize the same point very much. I guess he wasn't competent either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the basic argument being used to justify deleting Sagan is flawed. "Argument from authority" does not derive from whether the individual is or is not an authority, but rather from whether the arguer and audience thinks he is. Thus "the Pope says X" is an argument from authority when used by or aimed at individuals who recognize the authority of the Pope. It wouldn't be an argument from authority to a Mormon, just as "Joseph Smith said" isn't an argument from authority to a roman catholic. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it's frankly bizarre that anybody would try to argue that we can't cite scientists on scientific procedure. Unsurprising that the guy trying to do it has gotten multiple bans in the past. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Most scientists are extremely incompetent about everything that is even the tiniest bit outside their own field and the many instances of Carl Sagan doing half-baked philosophy on television are a great example of this Sagan himself is quite often quoted as an argument from authority.

I am working on a video about this topic and am going to show this quote on Wikipedia as an example. But I thought I'd better try to remove it at least once so I don't get brain-dead defenders of Wikipedia telling me its open for anyone to edit and fix errors like this. It's not. BenMcLean (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you completely ignored my counterargument ("the basic argument being used to justify deleting Sagan is flawed. 'Argument from authority' does not derive from whether the individual is or is not an authority, but rather from whether the arguer and audience thinks he is.") and instead responded with an insult ("brain-dead defenders of Wikipedia") has been duly noted. I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
What would be the point of addressing your argument? Wikipedia's not a neutral platform. It stands behind your ideology and when your ideology is not winning out, it will make up arbitrary rules to ensure that it wins out. The better argument does not prevail: preserving The Narrative does.
I will make changes occasionally if they are unopposed, but if they are ever opposed, then there is no point. If the rules don't back you up then the rules will be changed to back you up. --BenMcLean (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I am really curious about the details of your theory. How did I manage to get into the privileged position where "the rules will be changed to back me up"? Did I bribe someone? Is it because of my natural charm and rugged good looks? Was there some sort of poll taken where we each present an ideology that we want the rules changed to back up and Jimbo picks a winner? I am really curious, because I don't remember any of those things happening. This should be of great interest to you, because if you can do whatever it is you think I did, then the rules would be changed to benefit you instead of me. That is, of course, if you really believe that there is a vast conspiracy against you.
I have a competing theory. My theory is that your argument is flawed for the exact reason I said it was flawed. My theory is that you simply don't have a compelling argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
So we have, on one side, a well-respected astronomer who spent a big part of his life explaining science to big audiences. What he says about arguments from authority is exactly right. It is simply how science is done and should be done. Every scientist knows that. Sagan was simply giving the basics, and he was able to do that because he knew the basics.
On the other side, we have some guy
  • who by his own admission deleted the Sagan quote in order to prove a point (which is against the rules, see WP:POINT),
  • who seems to have based that deletion on the following syllogisms (actually non sequiturs):
    • Major premise: "Most scientists are extremely incompetent about everything that is even the tiniest bit outside their own field"
    • Minor premise: Sagan was a scientist
    • Conclusion: Sagan was extremely incompetent about everything that was even the tiniest bit outside his own field
      which would only work if the first word were "all" instead of "most",
    • Major premise: "many instances of Carl Sagan doing half-baked philosophy on television"
    • Minor premise: Sagan said that thing about arguments from authority
    • Conclusion: That thing about arguments from authority Sagan said was half-baked philosophy
      which would only work if the first word were "all" instead of "many",
  • who cannot even be bothered to defend his weak claims against one argument,
  • and who poisons the well ("Wikipedia's not a neutral platform", "brain-dead defenders of Wikipedia") in order to discredit beforehand any possible future attempt to contradict him.
Even if I hadn't already known which side is the competent one here, I'd know now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 [B.S.  DETECTED] [HOB TAKES AIM] [TARGET LOCKED] [  *FIRE!!!*  ]
 .--------------. .-------------. .-------------. .-------------.
 |       o      | |      |      | |    \ o /    | |  \`. | .'/  |
 |     /( )\    | |   -- + --   | |   --(+)--   | |-- *BLAM!* --|
 |______/_\_____| |      |      | |_____/|\_____| |__/_'_|_'_\__|
 '--------------' '-------------' '-------------' '-------------'
 --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Logical Form

I'm bringing back the logical form section. That is the most important part of the article as it is the only section that directly explains what an argument from authority is. If you disagree, let me know. Original Position (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm not going to waste my time here if FL or Atlanta is still involved. Original Position (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Added lots. Speaking of Argument from authority. {:<{)> Happy New Year!Q to you all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I will cite an additional source, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) (ISSN 2161-0002), the Web version, for brief explanations of some other fallacious subtypes of arguments from authority. Please share any concerns here. Chris Dubey (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I recently noticed a discrepancy between the entries of the two online philosophy encyclopedias I had cited earlier in the article. I just revised the citations to reflect the difference I found. Christopher James Dubey (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If you want to continue this you should put them into a new section, rather than in history. --Original Position (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Original Position, I agree with FL or Atlanta. It looks like you were picking an arbitrary cutoff date for where you think the history description should end. In my opinion, that would contradict the precedents set by many other articles, as I recall even seeing articles describing recent news on their topics up to the present day. Christopher James Dubey (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I was the one who originally wrote that section. FL or Atlanta and another poster had an agenda to deny what literally no source on this argument denied: that some arguments from authority are not fallacious. I'm not willing to spend another couple months trying to persuade him that this is true as a precondition to making these edits. For instance, why does the history section now say, in flat contradiction to the information provided above and below it, that "in the Western Rationalistic Tradition and in early modern philosophy, appealing to authority was generally considered a logical fallacy."? Look at the sources, some book about PC that makes an aside about the history of philosophy and an obscure article about interpreting Sherlock Holmes. By contrast, the sources I cited contradicting that claim come from a booklength treatment of the argument from authority by one of philosophy's leading authorities on informal logic, from one of the most influential books on fallacies written in the last century, and from an article on this argument type published by the leading journal on informal logic. The point of the article is to present the views of the leading authorities on the topic at hand. FL or Atlanta acted like it was to present the views of an authority on any topic willing to say words that support FL or Atlanta's view of the argument from authority. That is intellectually dishonest.
As to your specific point, here's the problem. There are many different examples of how arguments from authority can be fallacious. You cite one of them here. Fine. But how does that relate to the history of the argument? Why did you pick this way instead of some other? Is it particularly significant or controversial? Not really. What you are really doing here is providing an example to illustrate what a fallacious argument from authority is. That would be useful to do in an encyclopedia. We used to have a section doing that here called "Logical Form." That's where your example should go, not in a discussion of the changing history of how this argument is understood. Unfortunately, when I brought back the section on "Logical Form," FL or Atlanta reverted it because of reasons.
Second, I have no objection to discussing the current view of the argument in the History section - I did so myself in citing contemporary logic textbooks. However, I did so because they were relevant to the history of the argument itself, contrasting contemporary ways of referring to the argument from how it was referred to 50 years ago. Your own discussion here is just about the nature of the argument itself, not about how that nature shows a different understanding of the argument now than in the past. Original Position (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the fallacious forms my citations described are indeed significant, though maybe the quotes should include more from them. I'm not opposed, though, to moving that information around back into a "Logical Form" section. I would be opposed to deleting those sources. I'm curious, though, what are these sources you had cited? You mention a book and an article from "the leading journal." Would you show us again? Christopher James Dubey (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
To elaborate on some points...
"The point of the article is to present the views of the leading authorities on the topic at hand." This in itself is an appeal to authority, is circular logic, and even if certain philosophical "authorities" are "leading authorities" on the subject, I would expect citations are needed to confirm that.
"There are many different examples of how arguments from authority can be fallacious. You cite one of them here. Fine. But how does that relate to the history of the argument?" My contributions were citations by philosophy professors Hans Hansen, Bradley Dowden, and John Nolt et al, who all if I remember correctly have PhDs in philosophy and whose cited work is about logical fallacies. Therefore they are also authorities on this and their cited work is part of the history of this subject.
"Why did you pick this way instead of some other? Is it particularly significant or controversial? Not really." This is subjective. In my opinion, Hansen, Dowden, and Nolt et al's cited work is significant, because by citing them the article points out that not only must authorities be qualified and reliable, but they must also present adequate evidence and there must not be controversy or widespread disagreement on the matter at hand. This implies that appeals to authority can be fallacious not only by being Appeals to Unqualified or Unreliable Authorities, but by being Appeals to Unjustified Authorities or Appeals to Arbitrarily Preferred Authorities when authorities are in major disagreement. Removing the citations of those three published reliable sources would eliminate those points from the article.
"Your own discussion here is just about the nature of the argument itself, not about how that nature shows a different understanding of the argument now than in the past." Really? So it can be shown that those points were agreed to by past authorities? I didn't get that sense reading the article before I added those citations. Christopher James Dubey (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Definition

Should be "when someone claims to be right solely because they say so or because X *expert* says so without secondary evidence." not "when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert" as that actually suggests that experts are always right (in their field) which is the whole point of this. [1][2][3] Should I change? Endercase (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you should make the change - the true essence of the fallacy is when someone says "these people say X and you should believe X because they're authorities". FL or Atlanta (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@FL or Atlanta:Yeah, but even your small change got reverted. I think I'll wait for more input. Endercase (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://carm.org/dictionary-argumentum-ad-verecundiam
  2. ^ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  3. ^ http://wiki.c2.com/?AdVerecundiam
@Endercase: I am here for two reasons: (1) I have had this article on my watch list for quite some time--if you look in the archives my name comes up a number of times last year. (2) Because of the help you have sought from me. I am a bit torn on whether to advise you here or on your talk page. Since the advice has to do with your post here about this article, I am going to post the bulk of my reply here, so others working on the article can chime in. Some advice:
(1) I do not believe any of the three sources you cite above are good WP:RS for this Philosophy article. If you do not believe me or understand why, you can try posting AS A QUESTION on the WP:RS/N board -and/or- on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy and see what other editors say. To do so, I would suggest a wording such as this:
Do these three sources
  1. https://carm.org/dictionary-argumentum-ad-verecundiam
  2. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  3. http://wiki.c2.com/?AdVerecundiam
constitute valid WP:RS to justify the statement:
Argument from authority is "when someone claims to be right solely because they say so or because X *expert* says so without secondary evidence."
Or just wait for more opinions here.
(2) Despite the fact that Rational wiki is not WP:RS by my opinion, I think their article is far better than ours.
(3) The arguments for changing the article as you propose go way back. Read through the archives of the talk page. I participated in some of those discussions.
(4) It's not a good idea to join in with the edit-warring. We need to collaborate. An WP:RfC might be the solution. If you want to propose an WP:RfC I might be willing to help. Other editors might too. If so, be careful to craft the WP:RfC in relatively discrete terms that do not argue for one version or another. A binary YES / NO often helps move things forward. Look at past WP:RfC in other articles as I suggested as examples.
(5) I do not believe your proposed change is an improvement, even though common sense might make it seem correct. Go to the WP:RS as has been done in the lengthy discussion in the archives to see what scholars in Philosophy say about Argument from authority.
(6) I will leave my last comment on your talk page since it is about behavior.
--David Tornheim (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Compliance with LEDE guideline

I wrote about this on the "New Introduction" talk page, but will repeat it here. If I have said to before on this talk page, sorry to repeat myself, but it seems to still be an issue:

Our guideline for writing the lead (aka "lede") is WP:LEDE. It's a bit different than writing a typical English essay where one starts with a thesis and defends it. Here when the WP:BODY becomes developed "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." So it is more of a bottom up requirement. Despite this guideline, I have witnessed numerous cases where this has not been followed, probably because most of us believe that the typical reader does not read past the WP:LEDE anyway. Regardless, whenever re-writing aspects of the WP:LEDE always verify that it follows this guideline and accurately summarizes what is in the body with due weight. If you feel the lede does not do that, feel free to point out discrepancies between the lede and body. Ideally read and improve the body first and then change the lead appropriately. And although other editors routinely do not follow this guideline that does not make it okay. The edit-warring of the current lede does not look good. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please review my edits

I just made quite a few changes, most of them were grammatical or organizational but I did add some information from a previously referenced source. If any of my recent changes were controversial please change them and address the issue here. Thank you --Endercase (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, a "true expert" can have valuable insight.

So I too feel like it is currently redundant. If we made the above changes that I suggested then it wouldn't be. But, the current intro suggests that a true expert is always right in their field and as such the statement doesn't really make any sense to me.

@MjolnirPants, MPants at work, FL or Atlanta, Perfect Orange Sphere:I'm pinging all accounts that have been involved in this minor edit war. Other than my above statement I'll stay out of it. Please revert me if I am out of order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endercase (talk • contribs)

Sounds good to me: we make your changes, and we can also include that sentence. That would give it purpose within the article. I support Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


Alright, as the main user who expressed distaste for this has stepped aside I guess I will attempt to convey their argument. The logical fallacy of an argument from authority is not the expertise in and of itself but the idea that expertise can supersede evidence or that evidence does not matter as much as authority. As such the value of and argument from authority is not in the authority in an of itself but in the experience with the data that the expert would have. So while an appeal to authority my be off-putting for some, the value of the experts' view on any subject must be weighed. As such the article must reflect that an appeal to authority is not inherently fallacious, but instead just that it can be fallacious.
Proposal I think we should model our intro after the one at the Rational Wiki with a slightly better explanation of how this type of argument can be fallacious, while still maintaining the idea that it is not necessarily so. We should open a sub page and work on the wording there, and do a Rfc when we feel it is ready. We can leave a tag on the intro linking to the work if y'all would like. I have seen that mentioned for use when a particular portion of text is disputed.
I think that it is very important that we do this collaboratively and without any name calling or finger pointing. Not that that needs to be mentioned.
We can make this work for everyone. Endercase (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The sub page is at Argument from authority/New introduction Endercase (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: I agree about the RationalWiki as a better article than ours and using it as a model. However, starting with it appears to be a WP:copyright violation. See Talk:Argument_from_authority/New_introduction.
Also, when you make a comment below your own comment, it's probably better not to indent a second time, as it makes it look like someone else is responding. You can just make a new post at the same identation level, or you can just add to your old post if no one has commented on it yet, and either leave the date as is, re-sign it, or add an addition "(revised ~~~~~)" which will show the date of the last revision(s) rather than a full new signature. I did that to this one to show you what that looks like with this edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (revisied 03:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC))
@David Tornheim: Ah, I was not sure how to approach this. I have done both in the past, I find that the indent does help if there is a time interval between posts such that you want other users to realize that something has changed visually, but I guess there is still the log. Though you make a good point about making it look like it is another user. I will likely follow your advise on this in the future (sorry I'm such a pain in the ass student, I do try though). Endercase (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

All appeals to authority when used as evidence are fallacious. An appeal to authority tells you who believes what, it tells you nothing about what is true. Most beliefs people have held that would require substantive arguing throughout history have been flat-out wrong, so being able to say "a lot of [whatever group is in fashion when you happen to be speaking] believe this" isn't an actual argument for it. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@FL or Atlanta: Please provide WP:RS that backs up this claim. Nearly all the WP:RS I have reviewed disagrees with this assertion. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@FL or Atlanta: Sounds like you making an appeal to authority here, to you own authority. XD (I had to say it, no harm intended, irony is my fav)
The idea that someone with experience is very likely to know more than someone that doesn't doesn't sound fallacious to me. I do agree that the concept that an authority (person who possesses power) is always correct simply because they are an authority is fallacious though. It is important to remember that power is often derived from knowledge and as such people in power (authorities) often (not always) are correct in their assertions (when they mean what they are saying).
The other thing you discuss here "whatever group" appears to be an appeal to popularity. Though, I do admit I am having some difficulty following your train of thought here. I may need further explanation. Endercase (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not about what we think or what makes sense to us. We write what the WP:RS says. Hence I removed the offending sentence. If anyone can provide high quality WP:RS in Philosophy and/or Logic, an argument for restoration can be made. With no WP:RS, it has to go. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Check out the new proposed LEDE

It still needs some work but it is re-located: Here. It also has an attached working talkpage. Endercase (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, we think it is ready (or nearly so). I have asked for comments from a number of users. Please visit the proposal and provide criticism. It currently has 3 editors agreeing on it and none opposing it. There are also a number of pulled quotes from RS on the talk page for easy reference. Endercase (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

auctoritate vs verecundiam

Wow I just noticed the verecundiam in Latin actually means to shame and auctoritate actually means authority. We should include something about this in the article. Doug Walton's book "Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority"[1] is a citation to start, but I have to come back to it later. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Walton, Douglas (1 November 2010). Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. Penn State Press. pp. 57–60. ISBN 0-271-04194-3. Retrieved 24 March 2017.


@Richard-of-Earth:I think they are very similar, in this usage it actually refers to the idea that one should be in reverence of or defer to a particular authority. Here is some (likely unintelligible) explanation.
verēcundia
1.knowing one's place: regarded as a virtue; coyness, modesty
2. in shame (of one's self in respect to something/someone else), awe (in respect to the superior)
From vereor ("(to/I) respect, (to/I) revere, (to/I) rightfully fear") and cundia ("begotten from, mother(not really a good translation), source of")
When synthesized (in the context of a type of augment) this becomes something like "with respect to the source of my shame (due to inferiority) and the cause of my righteous fear I believe what X(the source of these things) says and you should too". Which is to say that it is an argument done in deference to an authority.
The use of this argument implies that one can not convince the "opponent" of the merits of one's claims and thus defers to a mutually "respected" source without further evidence (in the strictest sense).
(my post represents an accumulation or synthesis from a large variety of sources and slight modifications in spelling of the words (in english letters) and should not be referenced in the article)
Translation across this vast amount of years and culture is hard, and finding a truly reliable source to do so is difficult. Endercase (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, you do not have to go that far. Locke coined the phrase in 1690. It means whatever he meant. What this means for the article is we should not present "argumentum ad verecundiam" as Latin for "argument from authority" as that would be "argumentum ad auctoritate". I found some places that use "argumentum ad auctoritate", but I think we do not need to mention it here as it is uncommon. We should present "argumentum ad verecundiam" as a different name for the argument type. We should also decide if we want content in the body about the Latin phrase, the meaning of "verecundiam" and any change in meaning over time. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Richard-of-Earth: Ah, well then, this may be an issue of Due weight. We should present both IMO. "argumentum ad verecundiam" is still a more common useage compared to "argumentum ad auctoritate" if the number of google hit is a good metric. Though if you have multiple (2+) reliable sources for "argumentum ad auctoritate" then by all means we should include it. I will do so now. Please add your citations when you have time, in case this is challenged. I do not see a significant different between their usages at this time though. Endercase (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Richard-of-Earth: Could you provide RS for "argumentum ad auctoritate"? It has been challenged, it will be removed without RS. Endercase (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase:The point I tried to make was "argumentum ad verecundiam" is not Latin for "argument from authority" and shouldn't be presented as such. I do not feel "argumentum ad auctoritate" should be in the article. I guess I will take a stab at re-writing that first sentence and then you tell me what you think. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Richard-of-Earth: You should cite the translation (latin for "argument to shame"). Translations are an issue in wikipedia I think. They require more RS I think. And maybe 'originally called argumentum ad verecundiam' should read as : 'First recorded usage as argumentum ad verecundiam' or something. Endercase (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Richard-of-Earth: Maybe you should edit here as we are close to a merge: User:Endercase/Argument from authority introduction. Endercase (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: I used Google translate. There wasn't a citation for the translation before, why should it need one now? However I will have a look and put something in. And what merge? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Richard-of-Earth: Yeah, Google translate is not RS, we aren't even allowed to link to machine translations of foreign Wikipedia articles as they often miss nuance (and are sometimes compleatly incorrect). The LEDE has been rewritten primarily due to edit warring here, the proposed LEDE is publicly available and hosted at on the other side of this link here. Endercase (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I used a more common translation and added citations. You can incorporate them as you see fit in your new and improved version. I really came here just to point out that it is not a direct translation nor even close. I am not very interested in participating in any arguments or further re-writes. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argument_from_authority/Archive_8&oldid=1079604074"