appeal to "authority"

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really care about what the reasons of *those economists* were. I'm more concerned with people that use the conclusions of experts without examining the reasons that led the experts to reach those conclusions.

The point is that *even though they are experts* they were wrong - you can't rely on the judgements of experts just because they are experts.

I did not say that experts are *always* wrong.

You misunderstand the difference between the converse and the contrapositive.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this has what to do with the OP?

[Cyrus]

What is your point ?

Experts can make mistakes. Oftentimes, a group of experts can be wrong on a matter of their field of expertise. Sometimes, even spectacularly so.

And I have even worse "news" than what you posted! Heuristic research has confirmed (if we can trust the heuristics experts, that is [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) that human choice is far from being normatively rational. In fact, we are making choices that deviate from what is "objectively" optimal, all the time. Sometime even consciously so.

Are we to abandon all hope then in what we can do together as humans?

My personal opinion is that we should continue to be advised by experts and that we should also continue to challenge their advice the best way we can.

If your post was meant to attack the concept of collective action, e.g. of the democratic process of communal decision-making, well, I see nothing of substance there.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What is your point ?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of this was that I've been told in this forum that "appeals to authority" are "legitimate" if the authority being appealed to is an expert. This was after someone explicitly used the fact that "every economics book in the universe" (paraphrasing) disagreed with an argument, therefore it couldn't possibly be right.

I believe the quote was along the lines of "if you can't trust economists for information about economics, who can you trust?" The implication was that statements from bonafide economists were beyond reproach.

[ QUOTE ]
Experts can make mistakes. Oftentimes, a group of experts can be wrong on a matter of their field of expertise. Sometimes, even spectacularly so.

...

My personal opinion is that we should continue to be advised by experts and that we should also continue to challenge their advice the best way we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I'm saying... listen, and challenge; don't just blindly accept.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume this means you will never quote Mises again?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the first thing I think of whenever pvn jumps on somebody for "appealing to authority"

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it has pragmatic value in that if you cant be bothered solving one particular side issue it is entirely reasonable to go with accepted wisdom of the experts and let them do the puzzling out for you. It is clearly of little value if it is your sole criteria for forming a view but not unreasonable if you wish to discuss an issue without getting bogged down in becoming an expert yourself first.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume this means you will never quote Mises again?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the first thing I think of whenever pvn jumps on somebody for "appealing to authority"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to remember if I've quoted Mises on this forum. I'm willing to bet a penny that I havent.

Regardless, thank you for replying. Now I remember it was you that origianlly made the "appeal to authority isn't fallacious if the authority is an expert" claim.

Starting [here]

Summarized:

moorobot:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course you are right and all those economics textbooks which say that the opposite is true (written by the group of social scientists most sympathetic to your cause, btw, which is not to say that they are very sympathetic to it) are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn:

[ QUOTE ]
Appeal to authority. It's in a book, it must be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

PoBoy321:

[ QUOTE ]
So if economists aren't reliable sources of information on economics, who is?

This is an appeal to authority, but it isn't a logical fallacy. If the authority is actually an expert in that field (e.g. economists on the economy) it's a legitimate appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the experts are never wrong!

moorobot's post was clearly a flat-out appeal to authority. "A guy that wrote a book disagrees with you". This isn't a "here's some information in a book that backs up my claim" or a "here's a witty quote that illustrates this argument I'm making", it's a "you're wrong because this book says so."

That's what I'm talking about.

[madnak]

A citation or reference isn't the same as an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is "he says it, so it must be true!" A reference is "here's a well-written explanation of why it's true, by an authority."

[Jdanz]

Sure a battle of ideas is all well and good, but i think all being poker players we know that it's best to just trust the authorities sometimes even when you disagree.

Before i understood poker very well i thought, hey i have the best hand, i better raise, I also thought stuff like AT is stastically way better than a random hand so i should reraise and cap before i understood Baysian theory. Everyone told me i needed a better hand to reraise, i didn't really get it, but obviously i was better off going with the wide consensus then my own flawed logic, of a topic i didn't really understand yet.

I decided to invest the time to figure out the why, and now i feel capable of argueing the merit of different lines, but clearly in the first example, even if i didn't understand the concept being applied i could figure out from evidence and people's ability to win at much higher limit games that their advice was still probably plus EV.

As your suriety of the "experts" results goes down, so should your willingness to head their advice.

[Jdanz]

[ QUOTE ]
A citation or reference isn't the same as an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is "he says it, so it must be true!" A reference is "here's a well-written explanation of why it's true, by an authority."

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree very much with this.