Difference between revisions of "Argument from authority"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Overview: further presumptions; moved a.k.a. to Synonyms section) |
(→Reference: notes - shifting the topic to ad hominem) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
* {{wikipedia|Appeal to authority}} | * {{wikipedia|Appeal to authority}} | ||
* [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html The Nizkor Project] | * [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html The Nizkor Project] | ||
| + | ==Notes== | ||
| + | As a [[rhetorical tool]], this argument often succeeds in [[shifting the debate]] from its original topic to a discussion of the merits of the cited authority, which can easily slide into [[ad hominem]] attacks ("you said so-and-so is wrong, well that just proves you're full of it!"). | ||
Revision as of 14:54, 2 August 2006
Overview
An argument from authority is any argument based solely on the credibility of a particular entity (the authority).
The presumption of credibility may proceed from any of several other presumptions, including:
- The authority is the definitive source for knowledge on this subject, so any statement s/he makes on this subject is true by definition or is the official truth
- The authority knows more than you do, so any counter-arguments you might propose are based on ignorance
- The authority is infallible and incapable of error
Synonyms
- ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it)
- argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect)
Related Pages
- Argument from authority is a type of black box argument.
Examples
- "Carl Sagan says there can't be life elsewhere in the universe, so that proves it."
- "God says homosexuality is a sin, so it must be."
Reference
Notes
As a rhetorical tool, this argument often succeeds in shifting the debate from its original topic to a discussion of the merits of the cited authority, which can easily slide into ad hominem attacks ("you said so-and-so is wrong, well that just proves you're full of it!").