Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common
form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish
a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
A is an authority on a particular topic A says something about that topic
A is probably correct Fallacious examples of using the appeal include
any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the
position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come
to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink.
Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.
Forms The argument from authority can take several
forms. As a syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:
A says P about subject matter S. A should be trusted about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct. The second premise is not accepted as valid,
as it amounts to an unfounded assertion that leads to circular reasoning able to define
person or group A into inerrancy on any subject matter.
Dismissal of evidence The equally fallacious counter-argument from
authority takes the form: B has provided evidence for position T.
A says position T is incorrect. Therefore, B's evidence is false.
This form is fallacious as it does not actually refute the evidence given by B, merely notes
that there is disagreement with it. This form is especially unsound when there is no indication
that A is aware of the evidence given by B. Appeal to non-authorities
Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of citing a non-authority as
an authority. First, when the inference refers to an inexpert authority, it is an appeal
to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group
without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.
Also, because the argument from authority is not a logical argument in that it does
not argue something's negation or affirmation constitutes a contradiction, it is fallacious
to assert that the conclusion must be true. Such a determinative assertion is a logical
non sequitur as the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically
necessary. Argumentum ad verecundiam
The phrase argumentum ad verecundiam is sometimes used synonymously to mean "argument from authority".
While it is linked, it does not have the same meaning. The Latin noun verecundia means "modesty"
or "shame". Its link to arguments from authority is that they are used to make those who lack
authority feel shame about discussing issues they lack credentials of expertise in, and
back out of an argument. Notable examples
In 1923, leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared based on his findings that
humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held
based on Painter's authority, despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.
Even textbooks with photos clearly showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to
be 24 based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.
As Robert Matthews said of the event, "Scientists had preferred to bow to authority rather than
believe the evidence of their own eyes". As such, their reasoning was an appeal to authority.
Another example is that of the tongue map, which purported to show different areas of
taste on the tongue. While it originated from a misreading of the original text, it got
taken up in textbooks and the scientific literature and remained even after being shown to be
wrong in the 1970s, and despite being easily disproven on one's own tongue.
Psychological basis The appeal to authority is an integral part
of the Asch effect. In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments,
it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likeliood of a subject agreeing
with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly
see that the answer was incorrect. Further, humans have been shown to feel strong
emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the Asch
experiments found that "Participants reported considerable distress under the group pressure",
with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas
the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.
See also Argumentum ad hominem
Credentialism Groupthink
Ipse dixit Logical fallacy
Name-dropping Manifesto of the Ninety-Three
Anti-authoritarianism References
Sources Gensler, Harry J.. Introduction to Logic.
New York, NY: Routedge. pp. 333–4. Baronett, Stan. Logic. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Works cited
Walton, Douglas. Informal Logic. London: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-71380-3.
External links The dictionary definition of ad verecundiam
at Wiktionary The dictionary definition of auctoritas at
Wiktionary