Argumentum ad verecundiam

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(organize a bit, couple links, new blurb)
(10 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
An '''argument from authority''' is one in which a proposition is claimed to be true because an esteemed person says it is true. It is a fallacy in that it relies on the person's fame, rather than expertise, or empirical evidence.
+
An '''argument from authority''' is one in which a proposition is claimed to be true because an esteemed person says it is true. It is a fallacy in that it relies on the person's fame or reputation, rather than on [[logic]]al arguments or empirical [[evidence]].
  
 
==Examples==
 
==Examples==
* "Albert Einstein believed in God. Are you saying that Einstein was wrong?"
+
* "[[Albert Einstein]] believed in [[God]]. Are you saying that Einstein was wrong?"
* "Robert Gentry, a world-famous astronomer, calculated that the odds of life appearing by chance are astronomically low."
+
* "Robert Gentry, a world-famous astronomer, calculated that the odds of [[abiogenesis|life appearing by chance]] are astronomically low."
 +
* The noted archaeologist [[Sir William Ramsey]], said “[[Luke]] is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”
  
 
==Discussion==
 
==Discussion==
It is not always a fallacy to say that "So-and-so says that X is true, therefore X is true." For this discussion, it is necessary to distinguish between an ''expert'' and an ''authority''.
 
  
If a famous astronomer says that the universe is expanding, then it is very likely that the universe really is expanding. If a qualified doctor says that a patient is suffering from Parkinson's disease, that's most likely the case. In these examples, the astronomer and the doctor are '''experts''' in a field, and are addressing topics within their area of expertise. As experts, they have studied their respective fields, are familiar with the state of the art, have studied how to recognize certain events, features or conditions, know how to recognize many problems that might lead a layman astray and how to work around them, and so forth. When we take an expert's word for something, we are saying, in effect, that if we had the time to learn as much about the field as the expert does, we would examine the evidence and reach the same conclusion.
+
===Not Always a Fallacy===
 +
It is not always a fallacy to say that "So-and-so says that X is true, therefore X is probably true." For this discussion, it is necessary to distinguish between an ''expert'' and an ''authority''.
  
Naturally, this applies only to experts speaking within their own field: there is no ''a priori'' reason to take an astronomer more seriously than anyone else on the subject of foreign policy or theology.
+
If a famous astronomer says that the [[universe]] is expanding, then it is very likely that the universe really is expanding. If a qualified doctor says that a patient is suffering from Parkinson's disease, that's most likely the case. In these examples, the astronomer and the doctor are '''experts''' in a field, and are addressing topics within their area of expertise. As experts, they have studied their respective fields, are familiar with the state of the art, have studied how to recognize certain events, features or conditions, know how to recognize many problems that might lead a layman astray and how to work around them, and so forth. When we take an expert's word for something, we are saying, in effect, that if we had the time to learn as much about the field as the expert has, we would be able to examine the evidence and reach the same conclusion.
  
On the other hand, if the Pope says, ''ex cathedra'', that contraception is a sin, then that's true as well. In this case, the Pope is an '''authority''' in matters of sin: it is his job to determine what is and isn't a sin in the Catholic church. In a very real sense, contraception is a sin not because it contradicts the Bible in some way, but merely because the Pope has said so.
+
Naturally, this applies only to experts speaking ''within their field of expertise'': there is no ''a priori'' reason to take an astronomer more seriously than anyone else on the subject of foreign policy or theology.
  
Note that in science, there are experts, but no authorities.
+
On the other hand, if [[the Pope]] says, ''[[ex cathedra]]'', that [[contraception]] is a [[sin]], then that's true as well. In this case, the Pope is an '''authority''' in matters of sin: it is his job to determine what is and isn't a sin in the [[Catholic church]]. In a very real sense, contraception is a sin not because it is intrinsically bad, or even because it contradicts the [[Bible]] in some way, but merely because the Pope has declared it to be so.
 +
 
 +
'''Note that in [[science]], there are experts, but (ideally) no authorities.'''
 +
 
 +
===On Sir William Ramsey===
 +
 
 +
Ramsey was a Christian apologist who set out to Asia minor in order to prove a specific aspect of the [[Acts|Book of Acts]]. Naturally he would consider Luke a reliable source, otherwise Ramsey would not have set out on a long and expensive trip to prove Luke's assertions. Further, Ramsey provides no evidence for his claim other than Luke was able to accurately name various cities and countries.
 +
 
 +
===On Albert Einstein===
 +
 
 +
In particular, the example of Albert Einstein can be used to clearly point out why this fallacy is so problematic. If one is in conversation with a person using this example, one can ask:
 +
 
 +
#Was Einstein ever wrong about anything?
 +
#If so, how then do we tell which things Einstein said were false, and which were true?
 +
 
 +
The answer to that question, of course, is objective investigation with evidence (Science), and thus, the reason ''why'' the statement is true or false is ''not'' because Einstein said so, but because of the evidence.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
{{Logical fallacies}}
  
 
[[Category:Arguments]]
 
[[Category:Arguments]]
 
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]
 
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Revision as of 10:21, 7 May 2011

An argument from authority is one in which a proposition is claimed to be true because an esteemed person says it is true. It is a fallacy in that it relies on the person's fame or reputation, rather than on logical arguments or empirical evidence.

Contents

Examples

  • "Albert Einstein believed in God. Are you saying that Einstein was wrong?"
  • "Robert Gentry, a world-famous astronomer, calculated that the odds of life appearing by chance are astronomically low."
  • The noted archaeologist Sir William Ramsey, said “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

Discussion

Not Always a Fallacy

It is not always a fallacy to say that "So-and-so says that X is true, therefore X is probably true." For this discussion, it is necessary to distinguish between an expert and an authority.

If a famous astronomer says that the universe is expanding, then it is very likely that the universe really is expanding. If a qualified doctor says that a patient is suffering from Parkinson's disease, that's most likely the case. In these examples, the astronomer and the doctor are experts in a field, and are addressing topics within their area of expertise. As experts, they have studied their respective fields, are familiar with the state of the art, have studied how to recognize certain events, features or conditions, know how to recognize many problems that might lead a layman astray and how to work around them, and so forth. When we take an expert's word for something, we are saying, in effect, that if we had the time to learn as much about the field as the expert has, we would be able to examine the evidence and reach the same conclusion.

Naturally, this applies only to experts speaking within their field of expertise: there is no a priori reason to take an astronomer more seriously than anyone else on the subject of foreign policy or theology.

On the other hand, if the Pope says, ex cathedra, that contraception is a sin, then that's true as well. In this case, the Pope is an authority in matters of sin: it is his job to determine what is and isn't a sin in the Catholic church. In a very real sense, contraception is a sin not because it is intrinsically bad, or even because it contradicts the Bible in some way, but merely because the Pope has declared it to be so.

Note that in science, there are experts, but (ideally) no authorities.

On Sir William Ramsey

Ramsey was a Christian apologist who set out to Asia minor in order to prove a specific aspect of the Book of Acts. Naturally he would consider Luke a reliable source, otherwise Ramsey would not have set out on a long and expensive trip to prove Luke's assertions. Further, Ramsey provides no evidence for his claim other than Luke was able to accurately name various cities and countries.

On Albert Einstein

In particular, the example of Albert Einstein can be used to clearly point out why this fallacy is so problematic. If one is in conversation with a person using this example, one can ask:

  1. Was Einstein ever wrong about anything?
  2. If so, how then do we tell which things Einstein said were false, and which were true?

The answer to that question, of course, is objective investigation with evidence (Science), and thus, the reason why the statement is true or false is not because Einstein said so, but because of the evidence.


v · d Logical fallacies
v · d Formal fallacies
Propositional logic   Affirming a disjunct · Affirming the consequent · Argument from fallacy · False dilemma · Denying the antecedent
Quantificational logic   Existential fallacy · Illicit conversion · Proof by example · Quantifier shift
Syllogistic   Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise · Exclusive premises · Necessity · Four-term Fallacy · Illicit major · Illicit minor · Undistributed middle
v · d Faulty generalisations
General   Begging the question · Gambler's fallacy · Slippery slope · Equivocation · argumentum verbosium
Distribution fallacies   Fallacy of composition · Fallacy of division
Data mining   Cherry picking · Accident fallacy · Spotlight fallacy · Hasty generalization · Special pleading
Causation fallacies   Post hoc ergo propter hoc · Retrospective determinism · Suppressed correlative · Wrong direction
Ontological fallacies   Fallacy of reification · Pathetic fallacy · Loki's Wager
v · d False relevance
Appeals   Appeal to authority · Appeal to consequences · Appeal to emotion · Appeal to motive · Appeal to novelty · Appeal to tradition · Appeal to pity · Appeal to popularity · Appeal to poverty · Appeal to spite · Appeal to wealth · Sentimental fallacy · Argumentum ad baculum
Ad hominem   Ad hominem abusive · Reductio ad Hitlerum · Judgmental language · Straw man · Tu quoque · Poisoning the well
Genetic Fallacies   Genetic fallacy · Association fallacy · Appeal to tradition · Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox