An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable. On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have been wrong actually. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.
Contents |
Forms
There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious. The first form of the appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not a known expert on dental care. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements and sponsorships. The second form, citing a person who is actually an authority in the relevant field, carries more subjective, cognitive weight. Many experts have a far greater knowledge of some subject than other people, and they should be trusted. However, the possibility of a mistake remains, and does happen. In practical subjects such as car repair, an experienced mechanic who knows how to fix a certain car will be trusted to a greater degree than someone who is not an expert in car repair. There are many cases where one must rely on an expert, and one does need to have proof and evidence for what that person knows. Many trust a surgeon without ever needed to know all the details about surgery themselves. In mathematics, the second form, especially when the appellant is himself the authority, is wryly referred to as "proof by tenure".
Appeal to authority as logical fallacy
An (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:
- A makes claim B;
- there is something positive about A,
- therefore claim B is true.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Arguments that (fallaciously) rely on the objectionable aspects of the person for the truth of the conclusion are discussed under ad hominem.
Examples of appeals to authority
- Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle. "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so."
- Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Jesus, Muhammad, or any other religious figure. "If (religious figure) said it was so, it is so." However, such an appeal may be based upon the belief that the speaker in question is holy and, by extension, inerrant.
- Referring to a sacred text. "If (the text) said it was so, it is so." Like in the previous example, such an appeal may be based upon the belief that the sacred text in question is inerrant.
- Referring to scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal. "I read in Science that X is so; therefore X is so."
- Referring to what one is told by one's teacher and/or parent. "My teacher said so, therefore it must be so."
- Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession, as in "This doctor recommends (brand-name) aspirin" or "Bankers recommend that people have six months' wages in a savings account".
- Something must be true because a war hero says it.
- Something must be true because it is in the news.
Of particular interest, however, is
- Something must be true because there is a scientific consensus. (See truth and consensus theory of truth).
Keep in mind that the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument. An appeal to authority cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion because the fact that an authority says something does not make it so. Ideally, propositions being true (or having arguments supporting them) is what makes authorities believe them to be true, not the other way around. An appeal to authority, thus, confuses cause and effect. Furthermore, notice that a rigorous concept of truth is a complex subject.
Discussion
Among the most respected of ancient Greek philosophers was Pythagoras, whose disciples were known for their custom of justifying their assertions by reference to the bald assertions of their master: αὐτὸς έφη (autos ephe), or "he himself hath said it." This well-known practice was carried on by later philosophers and ecclesiastics. Because of the influence of scholasticism, the expression is commonly known in its Latin translation, ipse dixit. In the Middle Ages, roughly from the 12th century to the 15th century, the philosophy of Aristotle became firmly established dogma, and using the beliefs of Aristotle was an important part of many debates. Aristotle's thought became so central to the philosophy of the late Middle Ages that he became known in Latin as Ille Philosophus, "the philosopher," and quotations from Aristotle became known as ipse dixits ("He, himself, has spoken."). In this case, Aristotle is an example of someone who is an authority in philosophy, but philosophy is an area where direct evidence is less readily available, and therefore, Aristotle's ideas carry weight, but are not the final word. On the other hand, arguing that all astronomers believe that the planet Neptune exists - and therefore, that serves as evidence of the planet's existence - is a more compelling argument because astronomers are knowledgeable in the relevant field and are in a position to readily prove or disprove the existence of the planet (direct experience). However, it is still better to argue from evidence than from what astronomers believe. Authoritarian ethics is the meta-ethical theory by which one attains ethical knowledge from an authority, for example from a God or from the law (see Divine command theory). The bandwagon fallacy can be viewed as a special case of an appeal to authority, where the authority is public opinion. The well known "Because I said so" argument is an infamous logical fallacy of this type. This statement makes the assumption that when a claim is made by an authority figure, especially a parent, the argument is automatically valid. Recall that this does not mean that the parents are not authorized to use such statements, or that children should automatically not obey a parent using this statement. More often than not, "Because I said so" is shorthand for "For reasons too complex for you to understand, or too lengthy for me to explain", which is formally flawed logic, but (as stated before) does not necessarily mean the conclusion (the requested obedience) is wrong.
Epistemology without appeal to authority
A philosophy which denies and rejects harshly the existence of any authority, proof, disproof, or justification, even only with probability, and holds everything open to criticism, including observation (that is, it even rejects the inference "X was observed directly → X is necessarily true" as an appeal to authority), logics and its own very basic positions, such as criticism itself, is pancritical rationalism. Without the need to ever appeal to authority for justification, the pancritical rationalist is able to hold his position with complete integrity, since he is not guilty of relativism or dogmatism.
Sub-categories
Last man standing fallacy — The arguments of the victor in an election or war are axiomatically validated by the victory. It is also known as the Trial by Combat Fallacy, Winner Takes All Fallacy. Martyr fallacy — The loser is axiomatically correct by virtue of failure (antithesis of Last Man Standing Fallacy), also known as the Underdog Fallacy. Not universal taxonomy [nomenclature derived from "Lectures on Logic" Dioc.North [Paul Priest, 1991]
