Difference between revisions of "Argument from authority"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Overview: argument from disqualification) |
m (Fallacies -> fallacies; tweaks) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:logical fallacies]]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 presumption of credibility may proceed from any of several other presumptions, including: | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* The authority is infallible and incapable of error | * The authority is infallible and incapable of error | ||
===variants=== | ===variants=== | ||
| − | An inverse of this argument could be called the "argument from insufficient authority" or "argument from disqualification", and could be phrased as: "You don't know enough about this subject, so your arguments are wrong regardless of whether they make any sense." This is the essence of | + | An inverse of this argument could be called the "argument from insufficient authority" or "argument from disqualification", and could be phrased as: "You don't know enough about this subject, so your arguments are wrong regardless of whether they make any sense." This is the essence of an argument sometimes raised against atheists who criticize [[religion]] – that they are "ignorant of theology" and hence aren't qualified to criticize its subject matter. |
===value=== | ===value=== | ||
While the argument from authority ''proves'' nothing, it can be valid under certain circumstances: | While the argument from authority ''proves'' nothing, it can be valid under certain circumstances: | ||
* If disagreeing parties can agree on the validity of a particular authority's opinion | * If disagreeing parties can agree on the validity of a particular authority's opinion | ||
* If disagreeing parties can agree that their level of knowledge or expertise is inadequate to properly evaluate a situation | * If disagreeing parties can agree that their level of knowledge or expertise is inadequate to properly evaluate a situation | ||
| − | * If disagreeing parties can agree that the effort necessary to reach an objective factually-based conclusion would be prohibitively costly in time, energy, or other resources (see [ | + | * If disagreeing parties can agree that the effort necessary to reach an objective factually-based conclusion would be prohibitively costly in time, energy, or other resources (see [[googlegroups:theauthoritarians/msg/ca6ad3594b7188af]] for some discussion). |
| − | |||
==Synonyms== | ==Synonyms== | ||
* '''ipse dixit''' (Latin: ''he himself said it'') | * '''ipse dixit''' (Latin: ''he himself said it'') | ||
* '''argumentum ad verecundiam''' (Latin: ''argument to respect'') | * '''argumentum ad verecundiam''' (Latin: ''argument to respect'') | ||
| − | |||
==Related Pages== | ==Related Pages== | ||
* [[Argument from authority]] is a type of [[black box argument]]. | * [[Argument from authority]] is a type of [[black box argument]]. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 22: | ||
* "God says [[homosexuality]] is a sin, so it must be." | * "God says [[homosexuality]] is a sin, so it must be." | ||
* "[[wikipedia:Albert Einstein|Albert Einstein]] said 'God does not play dice with the universe.', so [[wikipedia:quantum physics|quantum physics]] must be wrong." | * "[[wikipedia:Albert Einstein|Albert Einstein]] said 'God does not play dice with the universe.', so [[wikipedia:quantum physics|quantum physics]] must be wrong." | ||
| − | |||
==Reference== | ==Reference== | ||
| − | * {{wikipedia|Appeal to authority}} | + | * {{wikipedia|Appeal to authority}} (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== | ==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'' wrong!"). | 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'' wrong!"). | ||
Revision as of 14:34, 22 May 2008
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
variants
An inverse of this argument could be called the "argument from insufficient authority" or "argument from disqualification", and could be phrased as: "You don't know enough about this subject, so your arguments are wrong regardless of whether they make any sense." This is the essence of an argument sometimes raised against atheists who criticize religion – that they are "ignorant of theology" and hence aren't qualified to criticize its subject matter.
value
While the argument from authority proves nothing, it can be valid under certain circumstances:
- If disagreeing parties can agree on the validity of a particular authority's opinion
- If disagreeing parties can agree that their level of knowledge or expertise is inadequate to properly evaluate a situation
- If disagreeing parties can agree that the effort necessary to reach an objective factually-based conclusion would be prohibitively costly in time, energy, or other resources (see googlegroups:theauthoritarians/msg/ca6ad3594b7188af for some discussion).
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."
- "Albert Einstein said 'God does not play dice with the universe.', so quantum physics must be wrong."
Reference
- Wikipedia (Appeal to authority)
- 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 wrong!").