Jump to content

Argument from authority: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 711802488 by FL or Atlanta (talk) Are you trying to get banned again? Stop edit warring!
You didn't let me finish :P like I said on the Talk I'm adding the other examples you asked for that've been removed in the past. They need some work but I think they're to your liking!
Line 37: Line 37:


However, it is also a fallacious ''[[ad hominem]]'' argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered. As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Van Eemeren|first1=Frans|last2=Grootendorst|first2=Rob|title=Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.| journal=Argumentation| date=1987| volume=1| issue=3| pages=283–301| doi=10.1007/bf00136779}}</ref>
However, it is also a fallacious ''[[ad hominem]]'' argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered. As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Van Eemeren|first1=Frans|last2=Grootendorst|first2=Rob|title=Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.| journal=Argumentation| date=1987| volume=1| issue=3| pages=283–301| doi=10.1007/bf00136779}}</ref>

==Notable examples==

===Inaccurate chromosome number===
In 1923, leading American zoologist [[Theophilus Painter]] declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,<ref name ="Painter_Account" /> <ref name="48_taught">{{cite journal|last1=Mertens|first1=Thomas|title=The Role of Factual Knowledge in Biology Teaching|journal=The American Biology Teacher|date=October 1979|volume=41|doi=10.2307/4446671|url=http://abt.ucpress.edu/content/41/7/395}}</ref> that humans had 24 pairs of [[chromosomes]]. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter's authority,<ref>{{Citation |last= O'Connor|first= Clare|year= 2008|title= Human Chromosome Number|publisher= Nature|url= http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Human-Chromosome-Number-294|accessdate= April 24, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gartler|first1=Stanley|title=The Chromosome Number in Humans: A Brief History|journal=Nature Reviews Genetics|date=2006|volume=7|page=656|url=http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/The-chromosome-number-in-humans-a-brief-15575}}</ref> <ref name ="48_taught" /> despite subsequent counts totaling the [[Chromosome#Human chromosomes|correct number]] of 23.<ref name="Painter_Account">{{cite book|last1=Glass|first1=Bentley|title=Theophilus Shickel Painter|date=1990|publisher=National Academy of Sciences|location=Washington, DC|pages=316–317|url=http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/painter-theophilus-shickel.pdf}}</ref><ref name="Orrell_2008">{{cite book|last1=Orrell|first1=David PhD.|title=The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction|date=2008|pages=184–185|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=k3qyce241wwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref> Even textbooks<ref name="Painter_Account" /> with photos clearly showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24<ref name="Orrell_2008"/> based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.<ref name="Down_Binder">{{cite journal|last1=Kevles|first1=Daniel J.|title=Human Chromosomes--Down's Disorder and the Binder's Mistakes|journal=Engineering and Science|date=1985|page=9|url=http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/594/2/Kevles.pdf}}</ref>

This seemingly established number created [[confirmation bias]] among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so".<ref name ="Down_Binder"/> Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence",<ref name="Orrell_2008"/> to the point that "textbooks from the time carried photographs showing twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, and yet the caption would say there were twenty-four". <ref name="Orrell_2008"/> Scientists who obtained the accurate number modified <ref name ="Hsudo" /> or discarded <ref name="Liver">{{cite journal|last1=Unger|first1=Lawrence|last2=Blystone|first2=Robert|title=Paradigm Lost: The Human Chromosome Story|journal=Bioscene|date=1996|url=http://amcbt.indstate.edu/volume_22/v22-2p3-9.pdf}}</ref> their data to report 48, sometimes explicitly based on [[Theophilus Painter|Painter's]] reputation. <ref name="Hsudo">{{cite journal|last1=T. C.|first1=Hsu|title=Out of the Dark Ages: Human and Mammalian Cytogenetics: An Historical Perspective|journal=Cell|date=1979|url=http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/0092-8674%2879%2990249-6.pdf}}</ref>.

===Medical Professionals' Endorsement of Smoking===

From 1946 to 1954 [[R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company]] had an advertising campaign which promoted the smoking of one of its brands with the statement that more physicians smoke that brand of cigarette (according to a "national survey"), exploiting the respect for the medical profession that also smoked for its purported pleasure. This advertising campaign became indefensible as disclosures of the hazards of smoking began to emerge. <ref>https://www.flickr.com/photos/29069717@N02/11984742233</ref>

===Global Warming===

In response to the Climatic Research Unit Email Controversy, ("[[Climategate]]"), two groups of scientists published letters in the [[The Wall Street Journal]], both relying on appeals to authority to make their arguments; they relied upon the authority of other scientists, and even themselves. Most notably, both groups cited an email written by [[Kevin Trenberth]] as an authority.

To clarify the following arguments, [[Kevin Trenberth]] actually clarified himself, and the email cited by both groups: {{quote|It was actually about the lack of an adequate observing system.}}

====Letter Arguing For Caution and Support for Climate Science, Citing Kevin Trenberth====

On January 27, 2012, [[The Wall Street Journal]] published the [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366 First Wall Street Journal Letter], signed by 16 scientists. A key premise they relied upon was Kevin Trenberth's assertion regarding poor data, that certain anomalies could not be accounted for.

Based on their own experiences and Kevin Trenberth's statements, these scientists presented a sharp criticism: a letter from scientists to scientists, against the culture that had developed within climate science. {{quote|This is not the way science is supposed to work.}}

Their criticism was in view of the apparent departure from the [[Scientific Method]], specifically: poor data, lack of support, apparent dogmatism, supposed "Incontrovertible Evidence", hostility towards cautious [[Skepticism]], and conflicts of interest.

These scientists concluded by recommending that policy makers should exercise caution and make greater investments on behalf of the ''climate scientists'', to provide reliability.

====Rebuttal Letter, The Authority of the "Real" Climate Scientists====

On Feburary 1, 2012, [[The Wall Street Journal]] published a [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662 Rebuttal Letter] signed by 38 scientists.

Where the first letter was a general scientific critique regarding the credibility and culture within the climate science community, the response letter was framed to minimize the authority of the other scientists: {{quote|While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science.}}

The response focused on specific [[Climate Change]] issues which it considered incorrect, rather than address the cultural issue raised by the first group, (a [[Straw Man]] fallacy).

Arguing that the first group of scientists had misunderstood [[Kevin Trenberth]] and his statement, the second group cited their own authority through own relationships, and had understood all along:

{{quote|Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems ...}}

Having affirmed the first group's premises of poor reliability and the necessity for more support, they concluded by restating the Appeal to their Authority, from within a [[Bandwagon]] fallacy: {{quote|Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused.}}

The credibility of the response was further exacerbated because the intent to minimize the authority of other scientists, to establish their own, relied upon the authority expressed by their own signatures - ''including the signature of Kevin Trenberth himself'', (a Circular Fallacy, [[Beg the Question]]).


== Psychological basis ==
== Psychological basis ==

Revision as of 00:18, 25 March 2016

The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.[1]

An argument to authority may be fallacious if used to infer that the conclusion is certainly correct, if the cited authority is stating a contentious or controversial position, if they are speaking about issues unrelated to their expertise or if they are not a true expert at all.[2][1]

History

John Locke, in his 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was the first to identify argumentum ad verecundiam as a specific category of argument.[3] Although he did not call this type of argument a fallacy, he did note that it can be misused by taking advantage of the "respect" and "submission" of the reader or listener to persuade them to accept the conclusion.[4] Over time, logic textbooks started to adopt and change Locke's original terminology to refer more specifically to fallacious uses of the argument from authority.[5] By the mid-twentieth century, it was common for logic textbooks to refer to the "Fallacy of appealing to authority," even while noting that "this method of argument is not always strictly fallacious."[6]

Contemporary interest in fallacies was reinvigorated with the publication in 1970 of C. L. Hamblin's Fallacies. Hamblin challenged standard treatment of fallacies as dogmatic and unmoored from contemporary logic.[7] As a result, scholars such as Douglas Walton in Appeal to Expert Opinion and Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst in Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective[8] developed more rigorous accounts of how and when arguments from authority are fallacious. Logic textbooks also shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, now referring to the fallacy as the "Argument from Unqualified Authority"[9] or the "Argument from Ureliable Authority,"[10] identifying the fallacy as being due to the misuse rather than just the use of authority in argument.

Logical form

General

The argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:

X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.[11]

The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[11]

Other logicians have claimed that the argument from authority is a statistical syllogism:

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
p is correct.[12]

John Hardwig stated in an article published in the Journal of Philosophy that the appeal to an expert is not evidence of the truth of the expert's claim, but rather evidence that experts have conducted an inquiry into the matter and come to a conclusion. He wrote that this makes the appeal a reason to believe a statement.[13]

Pragma-Dialectical theory

One popular approach to understanding fallacies is the pragma-dialectical approach, first championed by Frans van Eermeren and Rob Grootendorst. On this account, fallacies are speech acts "which prejudices or frustrates efforts to resolve a difference of opinion."[14] This builds on a theory of argumentation which posits pragmatic rules similar to Gricean maxims as providing a model for critical discussion, and so defines fallacies as conversational moves that break these rules of discussion.[15]

On this theory, illegitimate appeals to authority can be fallacious in different ways, depending on the discussion rules that are broken in a given context. For instance, they can fall afoul of their Rule 2, "A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if the other party asks him to do so," if a particular standpoint is presented as self-evident, or by "giving the impression that there is no point in calling the standpoint into question." It can also be the result of not following their Rule 4, "A party may defend his standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint," if an participant in the discussion attempts to get their standpoints accepted "just because of the authority they have in the eyes of the audience due to their expertise, credibility, integrity, or other qualities."[16]

Appeal to non-authorities

Fallacious arguments from authority can also be the result of citing a non-authority as an authority.[17] These arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. The appeal to poverty for example is the fallacy of thinking a conclusion is probably correct because the one who holds or is presenting it is poor.[18] When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is a fallacious appeal to the common man.[2][19][20] A common example of the fallacy is appealing to an authority in one subject to pontificate on another - for example citing Albert Einstein as an authority on religion when his expertise was in physics.[17]

However, it is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered. As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.[21]

Notable examples

Inaccurate chromosome number

In 1923, leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[22] [23] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter's authority,[24][25] [23] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[22][26] Even textbooks[22] with photos clearly showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[26] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[27]

This seemingly established number created confirmation bias among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so".[27] Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence",[26] to the point that "textbooks from the time carried photographs showing twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, and yet the caption would say there were twenty-four". [26] Scientists who obtained the accurate number modified [28] or discarded [29] their data to report 48, sometimes explicitly based on Painter's reputation. [28].

Medical Professionals' Endorsement of Smoking

From 1946 to 1954 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company had an advertising campaign which promoted the smoking of one of its brands with the statement that more physicians smoke that brand of cigarette (according to a "national survey"), exploiting the respect for the medical profession that also smoked for its purported pleasure. This advertising campaign became indefensible as disclosures of the hazards of smoking began to emerge. [30]

Global Warming

In response to the Climatic Research Unit Email Controversy, ("Climategate"), two groups of scientists published letters in the The Wall Street Journal, both relying on appeals to authority to make their arguments; they relied upon the authority of other scientists, and even themselves. Most notably, both groups cited an email written by Kevin Trenberth as an authority.

To clarify the following arguments, Kevin Trenberth actually clarified himself, and the email cited by both groups:

It was actually about the lack of an adequate observing system.

Letter Arguing For Caution and Support for Climate Science, Citing Kevin Trenberth

On January 27, 2012, The Wall Street Journal published the First Wall Street Journal Letter, signed by 16 scientists. A key premise they relied upon was Kevin Trenberth's assertion regarding poor data, that certain anomalies could not be accounted for.

Based on their own experiences and Kevin Trenberth's statements, these scientists presented a sharp criticism: a letter from scientists to scientists, against the culture that had developed within climate science.

This is not the way science is supposed to work.

Their criticism was in view of the apparent departure from the Scientific Method, specifically: poor data, lack of support, apparent dogmatism, supposed "Incontrovertible Evidence", hostility towards cautious Skepticism, and conflicts of interest.

These scientists concluded by recommending that policy makers should exercise caution and make greater investments on behalf of the climate scientists, to provide reliability.

Rebuttal Letter, The Authority of the "Real" Climate Scientists

On Feburary 1, 2012, The Wall Street Journal published a Rebuttal Letter signed by 38 scientists.

Where the first letter was a general scientific critique regarding the credibility and culture within the climate science community, the response letter was framed to minimize the authority of the other scientists:

While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science.

The response focused on specific Climate Change issues which it considered incorrect, rather than address the cultural issue raised by the first group, (a Straw Man fallacy).

Arguing that the first group of scientists had misunderstood Kevin Trenberth and his statement, the second group cited their own authority through own relationships, and had understood all along:

Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems ...

Having affirmed the first group's premises of poor reliability and the necessity for more support, they concluded by restating the Appeal to their Authority, from within a Bandwagon fallacy:

Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused.

The credibility of the response was further exacerbated because the intent to minimize the authority of other scientists, to establish their own, relied upon the authority expressed by their own signatures - including the signature of Kevin Trenberth himself, (a Circular Fallacy, Beg the Question).

Psychological basis

An integral part of the appeal to authority is the cognitive bias known as the Asch effect.[31] In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.[32]

Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers 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.[33]

Scholars have noted that the academic environment produces a nearly ideal situation for these processes to take hold, and they can affect entire academic disciplines, giving rise to groupthink. One paper about the philosophy of mathematics for example notes that, within mathematics,

"If...a person accepts our discipline, and goes through two or three years of graduate study in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking, and is no longer the critical outsider he once was. In the same way [that] a critic of Scientology who underwent several years of 'study' under 'recognized authorities' in Scientology might well emerge a believer instead of a critic. If the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit." [34]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Walton, Douglas (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 223–5. ISBN 978-0-521-71380-1.
  2. ^ a b Baronett 2008, p. 304.
  3. ^ Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. p. 171. ISBN 0416145701.
  4. ^ Walton, Douglas (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion. Penn State University Press. p. 53. ISBN 0271016957.
  5. ^ Walton, Douglas (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion. Penn State University Press. pp. 54–55. ISBN 0271016957.
  6. ^ Coleman, Edwin (1995). "There is no Fallacy of Arguing from Authority". Informal Logic. 17 (3): 366–7. Retrieved 12 January 2016.
  7. ^ Hansen, Hans. "Fallacies". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 10 January 2016.
  8. ^ van Eemeren, Frans H.; Grootendorst, Rob (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. xi - 236. ISBN 0805810692. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  9. ^ Hurley, Patrick (2012). A Concise Introduction to Logic (12th ed.). Cengage Learning. pp. 138–9. ISBN 1285196546.
  10. ^ Layman, Charles (1999). The Power of Logic. Mayfield Publishing Company. p. 178. ISBN 0767406397.
  11. ^ a b Gensler, Harry J. (2010). The A to Z of Logic. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 14. Retrieved 7 January 2016.
  12. ^ Salmon, Merrilee (2012). Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (6th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth. p. 119. ISBN 1133049753. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  13. ^ Hardwig, John (1985). "Epistemic Dependence" (PDF). The Journal of Philosophy. 82 (7): 336.
  14. ^ van Eemeren, Frans; Grootendorst, Rob; Henkemans, Francisca (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 299. ISBN 0-8058-1861-8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  15. ^ van Eemeren, Frans; Grootendorst, Rob (1995). Hansen, Hans; Pinto, Robert (eds.). Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Penn State University Press. ISBN 0271014172. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
  16. ^ van Eemeren, Frans; Grootendorst, Rob; Henkemans, Francisca (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations. pp. 300–303. ISBN 0-8058-1861-8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  17. ^ a b Carroll, Robert. "Appeal to Authority". The Skeptic's Dictionary.
  18. ^ Silverman, Henry (2011). "Principles of Trust or Propaganda?". Journal of Applied Business Research.
  19. ^ See generally Irving M. Copi (1986). Introduction to Logic (7th ed.). Macmillan Publishing Company. pp. 98–99.
  20. ^ Bennett, B. "Appeal to the Common Man". Logically Fallacious.
  21. ^ Van Eemeren, Frans; Grootendorst, Rob (1987). "Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective". Argumentation. 1 (3): 283–301. doi:10.1007/bf00136779.
  22. ^ a b c Glass, Bentley (1990). Theophilus Shickel Painter (PDF). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. pp. 316–317.
  23. ^ a b Mertens, Thomas (October 1979). "The Role of Factual Knowledge in Biology Teaching". The American Biology Teacher. 41. doi:10.2307/4446671.
  24. ^ O'Connor, Clare (2008), Human Chromosome Number, Nature, retrieved April 24, 2014
  25. ^ Gartler, Stanley (2006). "The Chromosome Number in Humans: A Brief History". Nature Reviews Genetics. 7: 656.
  26. ^ a b c d Orrell, David PhD. (2008). The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction. pp. 184–185.
  27. ^ a b Kevles, Daniel J. (1985). "Human Chromosomes--Down's Disorder and the Binder's Mistakes" (PDF). Engineering and Science: 9.
  28. ^ a b T. C., Hsu (1979). "Out of the Dark Ages: Human and Mammalian Cytogenetics: An Historical Perspective" (PDF). Cell.
  29. ^ Unger, Lawrence; Blystone, Robert (1996). "Paradigm Lost: The Human Chromosome Story" (PDF). Bioscene.
  30. ^ https://www.flickr.com/photos/29069717@N02/11984742233
  31. ^ Grootendorst, Robert (1992), Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, p. 158
  32. ^ McLeod, Samuel (2008), Asch Experiment, Simply Psychology
  33. ^ Webley, Paul, A partial and non-evaluative history of the Asch effect, University of Exeter {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  34. ^ David, Phillip J.; Hersh, Reuben (1998). New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics (PDF). Princeton University Press. p. 8.

Sources

  • Baronett, Stan (2008). Logic. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Wikiquote has quotations related to Argument from authority.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argument_from_authority&oldid=711803412"