Appeal to authority

An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it, where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter's credibility). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy. Some examples of appeals to authority:

Related Topics:
Argument - Logic - Latin - Ipse dixit - Propositional knowledge - Logical fallacy

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle. "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so".
• Quotes from religious books such as the Bible. "The Bible says X, therefore X is the right thing".
• Claiming that some crime is morally wrong because it is illegal. "It's against the law for stores to be open on weekends, therefore it's wrong for them to do so".
• Referencing scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal. "Science (in the form of an article in a prestigious journal) says X, therefore X is so".
• Believing what one is told by one's teacher. "My teacher said so, therefore it must be right."
• Something must be true because it is in the news.
• Something must be true because it is in a textbook.
• Something must be true because it is in an encyclopedia.
• Something must be true because it is in Wikipedia.

Sometimes, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. This is the case when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not 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 an expert on dental hygiene. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy; for example when Michael Winner promotes car insurance, despite having no expertise in the field of car insurance.

Related Topics:
Logical fallacy - Authority - Arthur C. Clarke - Dental hygiene - Advertising - Michael Winner

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Citing a person who is an authority in the relevant field should carry more weight, but given the possibility of mistake, should not be compelling. 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.

Related Topics:
12th century - 15th century - Philosophy - Aristotle - Latin

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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.

Related Topics:
Authoritarian ethics - Meta-ethical - God - Law - Divine command theory - Bandwagon fallacy - Public opinion

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A corollary to this is the infamous 'Because I said so' argument much stated by parents and loathed by children. It is a logical fallacy of this kind,in the fact that the parent is an authority figure and, therefore, should have the proper knowledge to make their statements true. However, like most fallacies of this kind, the validity of their statements is only in the form of their individual beliefs, and when pressed for a logical explination for the reasoning behind their statement, are unable to do so in a satisfactory manner. As such, the basic overall fallacy here is that, as they are the authority figures over a child, the child is supposed to believe that only their parents' statement is explanation enough for it to be so.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 
Appeal to authority: Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority ►