I was just explaining how the authority can be someone with genuine expertise. It’s just that it can be fallacious to consider something true based on just that authority.
No, it really isn’t. A fallacy is defined by a failure of rationality or reasoning.
I doubt we’ll find a solution to whether it is or isn’t, it seems to be a highly contentious topic
While all sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, and therefore, obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible, there is disagreement on the general extent to which it is fallible - historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources.
was just explaining how the authority can be someone with genuine expertise. It’s just that it can be fallacious to consider something true based on just that authority.
Yes an authority can be an expert, but being an authority does not implicitly mean you are an expert. Simply appealing to an expert’s opinion isn’t how the fallacy is defined. The fallacy happens when appealing to the expert is not a reasonable or rational argument, such as your example.
However there are plenty of examples where appealing an expert’s testimony is completely rationale.
While all sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, and therefore, obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible
I think you may be misinterpreting this. An appeal to authority in and of itself cannot be logical proof, but it can be part of the body of evidence that supports a logical proof. Logical proof is defined as a series of statements that show how a conclusion formed from a set of premises.
opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources.
Yes, because as we have already discussed it’s fallibility is dependent on what kind of argument you are proposing.
Just as in a court case, expert witness testimony can be used to bolster the body of evidence, but depending on the rigor of the court, isn’t enough evidence by itself to convict someone.
That doesn’t automatically mean that it’s illogical, just that it would be illogical to interpret the testimony by itself as logical proof. In the musk case, I think it’s fair to say there is a pre-existing body of evidence that supports the speakers affirmation.
In reality it is hard to lable something as an appeal to authority without a prolonged back and forth. If this person couldn’t back his assertion, or his only response to a rebuttal is “trust me I’m an expert”, then it would be a logical fallacy of appealing to authority. However, unless further questioned, it is at most hearsay.
Yes an authority can be an expert, but being an authority does not implicitly mean you are an expert.
That’s what I wanted to say. I was just trying to clarify that the “authority” in the “appeal to authority” doesn’t mean just someone who has for example political power, some government ministry or something like that but it can be an “authority in the field” or “authority in the subject” which usually comes through their expertise.
I think you may be misinterpreting this. An appeal to authority in and of itself cannot be logical proof, but it can be part of the body of evidence that supports a logical proof. Logical proof is defined as a series of statements that show how a conclusion formed from a set of premises.
It just sounds like you’re describing what I’ve said earlier. It’s not logical proof in itself but can support it. Not sure where we disagree.
You are referring to this particular case often in these messages and I think I need to clarify that I was just talking in general terms, trying to note that the authority in question can have genuine expertise. It’s just not logical proof in itself, which is why (some) consider it a fallacy if it used that way. Again, not speaking specifically of this case with Musk’s heiling.
doesn’t mean just someone who has for example political power, some government ministry or something like that but it can be an “authority in the field” or “authority in the subject” which usually comes through their expertise.
That’s the thing though, It very well can be and often is just a government minister without experience. The Authority in appeal to authority doesn’t dictate whether something is fallacious. Its whether or not utilizing their authority as evidence is logical or not.
The example on Wikipedia isn’t a fallacy because he was an authority/expert. It was that using personal testimony isn’t how you logically determine scientific fact.
just sounds like you’re describing what I’ve said earlier. It’s not logical proof in itself but can support it. Not sure where we disagree.
Because you can’t logically support proof with a logical fallacy. Meaning that expert testimony that logically supports an assertion is not a logical fallacy.
I was just explaining how the authority can be someone with genuine expertise. It’s just that it can be fallacious to consider something true based on just that authority.
I doubt we’ll find a solution to whether it is or isn’t, it seems to be a highly contentious topic
Yes an authority can be an expert, but being an authority does not implicitly mean you are an expert. Simply appealing to an expert’s opinion isn’t how the fallacy is defined. The fallacy happens when appealing to the expert is not a reasonable or rational argument, such as your example.
However there are plenty of examples where appealing an expert’s testimony is completely rationale.
I think you may be misinterpreting this. An appeal to authority in and of itself cannot be logical proof, but it can be part of the body of evidence that supports a logical proof. Logical proof is defined as a series of statements that show how a conclusion formed from a set of premises.
Yes, because as we have already discussed it’s fallibility is dependent on what kind of argument you are proposing.
Just as in a court case, expert witness testimony can be used to bolster the body of evidence, but depending on the rigor of the court, isn’t enough evidence by itself to convict someone.
That doesn’t automatically mean that it’s illogical, just that it would be illogical to interpret the testimony by itself as logical proof. In the musk case, I think it’s fair to say there is a pre-existing body of evidence that supports the speakers affirmation.
In reality it is hard to lable something as an appeal to authority without a prolonged back and forth. If this person couldn’t back his assertion, or his only response to a rebuttal is “trust me I’m an expert”, then it would be a logical fallacy of appealing to authority. However, unless further questioned, it is at most hearsay.
That’s what I wanted to say. I was just trying to clarify that the “authority” in the “appeal to authority” doesn’t mean just someone who has for example political power, some government ministry or something like that but it can be an “authority in the field” or “authority in the subject” which usually comes through their expertise.
It just sounds like you’re describing what I’ve said earlier. It’s not logical proof in itself but can support it. Not sure where we disagree.
You are referring to this particular case often in these messages and I think I need to clarify that I was just talking in general terms, trying to note that the authority in question can have genuine expertise. It’s just not logical proof in itself, which is why (some) consider it a fallacy if it used that way. Again, not speaking specifically of this case with Musk’s heiling.
That’s the thing though, It very well can be and often is just a government minister without experience. The Authority in appeal to authority doesn’t dictate whether something is fallacious. Its whether or not utilizing their authority as evidence is logical or not.
The example on Wikipedia isn’t a fallacy because he was an authority/expert. It was that using personal testimony isn’t how you logically determine scientific fact.
Because you can’t logically support proof with a logical fallacy. Meaning that expert testimony that logically supports an assertion is not a logical fallacy.