The real appeal to authority and bandwagon fallacy

[Kriminal99]

Main point and example

 

I have frequently seen a misinterpreted version of "Appeal to authority fallacy" supported on various sites and sources purporting to deal with fallacies.

 

Appeal to Authority fallacy is really just any time someone claims an argument is wrong because an authoritative source disagrees with it. It does not occur when a person reasons to themselves about which argument to consider, and no "appeal" has occurred in that case.

 

It is a fallacy because the only good reason a person could have to both

 

A) believe the authoritative source really is an authority on that subject

believe the authoritative source really disagrees with the current argument

 

is if the person UNDERSTANDS the argument the authoritative source would use to counter the argument they are appealing against.

 

However, if they did understand such an argument, they could simply present that argument instead of making the appeal to authority.

 

In reality people make an appeal to authority when they DO NOT understand subject particularly well, and do not understand who is an authority or not nor whether any given authority agrees or disagrees with the opponent of the person making the appeal.

 

It is not true that Appeal to authority fallacy only occurs when the "authority" is not really an authority on that particular subject. Why is this idea so frequent? I propose that to answer this you must look a bit into what fallacies are and where they came from.

 

Example:

 

 

What are fallacies and where do they come from

 

First, lets delve a little bit into what fallacies are and where they come from.

 

There are two different ways in which a person can generalize from their experiences in a fundamental, perhaps subconscious manner. Basically by using metaphors to relate similar experiences, or by using concepts to relate similar experiences. People likely use a little of each, but there are definitely people who use more of one than the other.

 

Most people generalize from their experiences mostly by using metaphorical reasoning. The reason for this is that metaphors are an effective tool for communicating, persuading, and moving other people emotionally.

 

However people who grow up in isolated environments, or who experience traumatic events in which the impotence of man is fundamentally imprinted upon them, generalize mostly with concepts. A concept is an idea in which somethings are concretely and precisely defined, and other things are left variable in a controlled manner. For instance verb is a concept because it has concretely defined traits (it is some kind of action describing word) but also variable traits (the actual action it describes can vary).

 

Generalizing using concepts results in accurate reasoning and thorough understanding of one's surroundings. However, concepts cannot be easily be communicated. That is why for example formal mathematics is so tedious.

 

So people who value understanding over communication and persuasion generalize using concepts.

 

How rational minded people view others

 

From this perspective of a person who generalizes mostly using concepts, the behavior of most people is nonsensical.

 

The absence of a comprehensive network of understanding caused by excessive generalization by metaphor causes people to intuitively reason in a naive manner. Such people then justify these naive behaviors using the fact that most other people also act in a similar manner.

 

Rational minded people face friction due to their intuitive understanding of why these behaviors are wrong, and as a result attempt to identify and express the reasoning that makes those behaviors are wrong.

 

Hence the creation of the fallacy.

 

What fallacies have become

 

People who impact society in a creative manner attract the attention of non-rational people who desire the level of attention this brings. Due to the relative scarcity of rational minded people, it usually occurs that non-rational minded people end up taking over the disciplines created by the creative rational minority. Thus the process of knowledge decay begins.

 

In this case, fallacies have become poorly understood - even to the point where the type of reasoning a fallacy was meant to prevent is supported in places where the fallacy is described and mentioned.

[Buffy]

You've glossed over the distinction between appealing to authority as representing an argumentative position versus appealing to authority to validate data that is used as part of one's own argument.

 

Perhaps in argumentation between the uninformed the former is more likely, however by ignoring the distinction of the latter, you appear to seek to claim that no argument contrary to your own can be validated by any reference whatsoever to an authority.

 

Neat trick.

 

Unfortunately of course, in order to justify the claim that any appeal to authority renders that appeal fallacious requires agreement with the notion that reducio ad absurdum arguments are valid....

 

To be generous, guiltless and of free disposition, is to take those things for bird-bolts that you deem cannon-bullets,

Buffy

[Flying Binghi]

Dressed in a little brief authority,

Most ignorant of what he's most assured,

His glassy essence, like an angry ape

Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven

As makes the angels weep.

 

Will Shakepeare

 

 

 

........... is that appealing or no

[Kriminal99]

You've glossed over the distinction between appealing to authority as representing an argumentative position versus appealing to authority to validate data that is used as part of one's own argument.

 

Buffy

 

Validating data has nothing to do with it and is not an "appeal" to authority.

 

An appeal to authority is when someone attempts to override an argument without addressing it (usually when they are not knowledgeable regarding the subject or do not want to concede defeat) based on the claim that some other person (or even the person making the appeal) disagrees with the argument and is an authoritative source.

 

I think an important thing to do is to separate "data" from reasoning. A frequent way the fallacy is committed is when people with a poor understanding of the scientific method claim that something has been "proven by science" as if they are referring to collected scientific data... when in fact data itself doesn't say anything at all and requires some form of additional reasoning to draw conclusions based on it. (and for that matter even to assure the data is accurate and unbiased)

 

It's fine to say that x trait of y physical object was observed with z variance blah blah blah, and then make the same argument as the scientists made based on that collected data.

 

It's fallacious to say "ITZ BEEN PROVEN BY SCIENCE!" without being able to produce the reasoning behind the experiment and it's conclusions.