appeal to "authority"

[pvn]

Why appeal to authority, even when that authority is an "expert" in the field, is a fallacy:

http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?typ...ase&ID=106

[ QUOTE ]
Can 364 economists all be wrong?

In 1981 almost the entire economics profession – 364 academic economists including many professors at leading universities – signed a letter to The Times [of London] in response to Geoffrey Howe’s budget arguing that the government’s economic policy was fatally flawed, had no basis in economic theory and should be abandoned in favour of alternative policies.

A new report by the Institute of Economic Affairs provides evidence to suggest that the 364 economists were all wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ElliotR]

1. Your sample size is too small.

2. 364 economists is "almost the entire economics profession"?!?!? hahahahahahahahahahaha

[tomdemaine]

They could say a different wrong thing every day and still have christmas off.

Tom Demaine - soon to be economics graduate [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Why appeal to authority, even when that authority is an "expert" in the field, is a fallacy:

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone makes an appeal to authority attempting to prove the claim in question is inexorably true (merely because an expert concurs), that is, of course, a fallacy.

However, if someone makes an appeal to authority saying "where should we place our bets in trying to gauge who is most likely correct: with the minority of authorities on the subject, or the majority of authorities on the subject (assuming there is some debate among authorities)?" -- you would almost certainly be making a -EV bet by backing the minority. Do you see why?

[vulturesrow]

I assume this means you will never quote Mises again?

[madnak]

This assumes that you're placing your bets solely based on the word of authority. If this is true, discussion is useless. (Unless you're an authority)

Most people form their own opinions, at least to some degree, rather than relying on authority. Thus, discussion happens as people play their opinions and ideas against those of others. To suggest that an appeal to authority has value in such a discussion is plainly erroneous.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people form their own opinions, at least to some degree, rather than relying on authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes that in most discussions, we should particularly care what opinions people form. That's why they're [censored] opinions. They're not falsifiable. I love the color green. Now discuss (because there's lots of value in discussing opinions).

I mean, evolution is fact, but who cares? I formed my own opinion, and I'm pretty sure the galactic emperor Xenu implanted humans in a volcano 65 million years ago. No need to point to authorities who have devoted their lives to studying their matter. I formed my own opinion. To suggest that citing scientists should have value in a discussion about evolution is plainly erroneous. We need merely to rely on our opinions.

Edit: removed "Bible" and threw in scientology references for effect.

[madnak]

Why do you like the color green? I like it too, it's a very peaceful color. Blue is peaceful too, but blue is just so sterile.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you like the color green? I like it too, it's a very peaceful color. Blue is peaceful too, but blue is just so sterile.

[/ QUOTE ]

and if blue is sterile and i want to have kids it might be bad for me. but when i see my doctor i want them to use a sterile needle so it is good. plus the sky is blue and it makes me feel good when i look at it.

[Hoi Polloi]

You misunderstand why informal fallacies are logical fallacies. The argument from authority is fallacious when the word of an expert or an authority of any kind is the only justification for the truth claim being made. "Because I said so!" is the parental classic example.

If the economists in question said your policies are bad because we are economists that would be an argument from authority. Presumably they had better reasons for their claims.

Similarly argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy because it argues your claim is false because you're a jerk, or dumb or from another group which as you can see in no way addresses the truth of the claim in question.

Finally, the question of formal and informal logical fallacies are not about determining whether an argument is true, but merely whether it is logically valid.

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.
All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a man.

In the second case, the argument is not logically valid though the conclusion is true.