Talk:Argument from authority/Archive 1

message: Is the following appeal to authority, but negative or inverse or opposite or just appeal to authority or not?
A makes claim B; 
there is something negative about A, 
therefore claim B is false.
--jeolmeun 06:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both genetic fallacies, but that's more technically an ad hominem attack. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative Appeal to authority? 

message: My Logic textbook (Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic) uses the term "appeal to unqualified authority" rather than "appeal to authority."  Does anyone know of any other source using the term or did the author make it up himself because he thought it was clearer?  --Silver2195 23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I have seen the following example being deleted at least twice recently:
* Something must be true because it is in Wikipedia.
However, either someone shows me why this example is not as fallacious as the other examples, or please refrain from deleting it.
It can also be argued that it is redundant (an encyclopedia is mentioned also) or innecessary, but I consider that it is actually quite appropriate. Deleting it makes us look like we are saying the Wikipedia can not be wrong, and is always a valid authority, when Aristotle, Einstein or any other encyclopedia have already been mentioned as not necessarily correct.
:I used to think that that example ought to be removed, due unto its being redundant considering the aforementioned example of an encyclopædia; however, considering the way in which Wikipedia is becoming an increasingly unquestioned resource nowadays, it might be a very good thing to remind readers that it most certainly isn’t. I therefore support the inclusion of the example of Wikipedia. By the way, unto the above contributor as well as any other contributor: please sign all your comments on talk pages and in other discussion fora with four tildes (~~~~), as this gives your username and a timestamp. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I do know how to sign... I just keep forgeting, sorry. The above comment is mine. Isilanes 21:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal to Wikipedia 

message: I have no idea wher this come from and why it is here, but it definetly looks like original research. The entire section is unreferenced (as most of the article, anyways). Besides, it's just incorrect or contradictory to previuos statements.
* The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity.
Whereas above, it' stated that  appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields.
Same for the following point. If the person who put [Linus Pauling] as an example had taken the time to look into the entry about him, he or she would have noticed that he's also noted as a versatile scholar for his expertise in inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, metallurgy, immunology, anesthesiology, psychology, debate, radioactive decay, and the aftermath of nuclear warfare, in addition to quantum mechanics and molecular biology.. So wrong and with a badly chosen example.
* The authority must be interpreted correctly. 
In this case, the matter of dispute is the interpretation of the authority, so the problem persists (X, who is an expert says that Y means... We might agree upon what Y says, but not about what it means)
Next point, Galileo example is non fitting. Galileo stand accused of heresy. His assertion of the sun immobility contradicted the scriptures and the aristotelian view (in this case the authorities). 
* The judgment must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample).
and 
* A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities.
Both these points require the ability to judge experts qualification, which again cannot resort to be appeal to authority.
In conclusion I'm tempted to delete this whole sections, but I wanted to hear about it first. 194.94.96.194 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority 

message: I do not like the current explanation on the parents' "because I said so" stuff, although the previous one was not perfect either. The fact is we are discussing logic here. We are not judging whether kids should obey their parents, or whether parents have the "right" of forcing kids to do whatever they see fit, giving no reason for that. The strict truth is that "because I said so" is a fallacy, in the sense that whatever the parent said is not so because she said so, but rather for other unespecified reasons. It amounts to the same as "apples fall because Newton said so", instead of "because of gravity". — Isilanes 18:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Because I said so" 

message: I have some concerns with this article. These entries, specifically.
"Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession, as in "This doctor recommends (brand-name) aspirin" or "Bankers recommend that people have six months' wages in a savings account". 
Something must be true because there is a scientific consensus."
These two entries insinuate (at least to me), that even though an expert in the fore-mentioned field is dispensing their professional expert opinion on their appropriate field, that, it is still an appeal to authority. In which case, should I disregard to anything my doctor says since even if there is a scientific consensus regarding to my treatment and that he's a professional, that he's still trying to use his profession as a source for his argument?
In other words, is the person that wrote this really thinking that scientists just write nonsense in science journals in order to boost each others' credentials? 
Perhaps it is simply me and my simpleton view on this article... but there are many masturbatory self-invented opinions in this article. Perhaps I shall adopt the stance that just because a philosopher writes an article regarding logical fallacies on Wikipedia, it *certainly* does not make it so.
--Sturmwehr 04:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the logical sense, yes, it is a fallacy to assume because your doctor says something it is true.  But that doesn't mean it isn't expedient to listen to your doctor.  If what your doctor says is true, it's not true because he says it, but rather for some other reason.  That's the issue. NickelShoe (Talk) 12:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok, glad that was cleared up. --Sturmwehr 11:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not a doctor yourself but are listening to advice from a doctor, you infer that it is true because you have come to a conclusion that he has good reasons for what he says in virtue of his training.  You place trust in his statements, and in virtue of that trust you do, in fact, infer that it is true because he has said it.  The claim that all appeals to authority are fallacious is in error, that appears to be based on the assumption that all arguments using appeals to authority purport to be deductive arguments, which is wrong. Lippard 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the scientific consensus bit should be fleshed out. I mean, if one has evidence that the scientists in the field carried out the relevant research independently, and the vast majority reached the same conclusion, and the few who hold contrary opinions are using dishonest methods like the cherry-picking of data, then is it a fallacy to appeal to authority in that case? I think Dan Dennett and Sam Harris discussed something similar in "The Four Horsemen" video. 
--78.16.27.118 (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example concerns 

message: I just reread the section and realized that it wasn't saying what I thought it was saying.  Yes in the sense of truth, a thing is true by the reasons it is true, not the authority....  --Kraftlos (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples POV 

message: Does the entry of poisoning the well also have some relevance here?  Just a quick note since I noticed it wasn't here, yet looking up the phrase was an indirect way that I got here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljpastor (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poisoning the well

message: There are various direct proofs of how appeal to authority is fallacious IN AN ARGUMENT, even as informal reasoning, but many people refuse to accept these proofs because they believe depending on the authority of others is the only choice.  These people are simply less capable than others, and commit further fallacy by trying to enforce their own limitations on others who may be more capable.  
It is fallacious to claim something is true because authority X said it, because the only way to be sure that authority X would agree or disagree with a certain argument would be to understand authority X's arguments and reasoning.  But if you did understand those arguments and reasoning, you could simply make the argument directly.  Thus if a person claims that something is true on this basis they are simply trying to prevent the display of any ability above and beyond their own.  
There are certain people in the population who are vastly more proficient at building up large networks of understanding spanning the majority, if not all, of human knowledge.  The majority of the population can not do this, do not have an understanding of topics they are exposed to that goes far beyond the information directly presented to them, and rely far more on specialization than others.  There are two distinct ways in which people handle information on a subconscious level, one of which emphasizes persuasion and artfully relating ideas, while the other emphasizes understanding and accurately relating ideas.  Only people who experience traumatic events early in life seem to truly develop this second subconscious approach to knowledge which means they are rare at best.  
Any claim supporting Appeal to Authority in an argument that is of the form "No one person can recreate a large enough set that we can depend solely on arguments making sense" is suspect because it requires the author not only to know this about himself, but also to know it about ALL HUMAN BEINGS.  It is far more likely that such a person does not want to accept the possibility that there are people out there more capable of such a feat.
It is a serious problem to justify the attitude that if you do not understand a topic it is ok to reject arguments based on the idea that someone somewhere who is "supposed to be right" as far as you know also rejects the argument.
:Remember that the purpose here is to write an encyclopedia article, not to expound your own WP:Original Research. The article needs more referenced material, not less.JQ (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim of "Original Research" has become a propaganda tool to be abused by people who feel they have some special power to control wikipedia content.  The concept of Original Research is not even well defined since every wikipedia article requires some degree of originality and is based on various references.  More references are not useful if they are a reference to something stupid and wrong.  -Anon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.188.25 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you disagree with the policy, you're welcome to argue for changing it, or to contribute to a project like Google knols, that encourages OR. But, for the moment, it's the policy, and you should abide by it.JQ (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with JQ.  I saw the new version of the article by 96.32.188.25 and was tempted to revert them myself, except that it obviously involved a good deal of work and there may be some merit to merging parts of the new version with the old version.  That said, the version by 96.32.188.25 was too much like an editorial and not enough like an encyclopedia article, and I think too much of the original article was cut for no good reason.  Furthermore, too many people depend on Wikipedia as a basic source of information to someone to single-handedly decide to change the standards to which new contributions are assessed. Sisterdetestai (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal to Authority is always a fallacy, but there is a reason why most people cannot understand why