Is "appeal to authority" actually a logical fallacy?
Of course in technical matters it is, you can't say "the answer to this math problem is this because a big mathematician says so". But in more subjective matters like history or law, are you not allowed to say "this is like so because there is a consensus in the field about it and until there isn't we claim it like this" or "this event signals this development because the person who knows most about that civilization claims it signals it"
Especially when you argue with total brainlets you feel compelled to appeal to authority and let them find out themselves instead of reinventing the wheel each time for their benefit
the fallacy is when the authority is not an authority in the field you are discussing
Adrian Cooper
No, read De Maistre. He argues in favor of appeals to authority. Very based.
Caleb Diaz
Depends on what subject you're talking about, especially in the current political climate where science and ideology are pretty much indistinguishable. Personally I find it much more interesting to dissect whatever the authority on the subject said and seeing if the other person comes with a better, more logical perspective rather than just saying "well if X said so then the discussion is over".
Logan Sanders
A fallacy doesn't mean someone is wrong, it's just a red flag. Appeal to authority is a tricky one, because it only comes up because people want to mouth off about subjects they aren't authorities on. And what should you do in that situation, particularly if you are an authority?
Ryder Taylor
yes it is, truth has no shareholder, if you are saying the truth doesn't matter if Aristotle or whatever said it, you are just being petulant
Adam Anderson
Who cares, a fallacy just means its not necessarily the case, not that authority shouldn’t be appealed to or that it isn’t sometimes strong rhetoric
William Scott
this
Ethan Evans
Common error. The fallacy is "appeal to irrelevant authority." Of course an appeal to relevant authority is a good support for an argument: it's the foundation of evidence-based debate and science. If I'm arguing something and provide a solid expert opinion, I'm doing my job and only morons would think otherwise.
Owen Roberts
>you can't say "the answer to this math problem is this because a big mathematician says so". You can't understand the proofs of Ferma theorem or abc conjecture, so you have to listen to top mathematicians and see if they approved them or not.
Adrian Flores
Yes it is a fallacy. It doesn't constitute proof, simple as.
Isaac Green
Not constituting proof doesn't make something a faulty argument. A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, not "failure to proof something 100% in one move." Expert opinions are persuasive and part of most logical arguments.
Brandon Young
>mathematicians understand their own proofs Lmao
Ian Cox
Most fallacies are bullshit or just guidelines. Most people are ignorant and stupid so even if you don't appeal to authority you must reformulate something to the extent that it's merely a vague analogy that same person will probably apply wrongly, beyond its scope or meaning. The most limiting thing, above ignorance and stupidity, is simply ignoring sources and any thinking or argument of depth. In these cases you have limited options, probably your best one, and the one they are often shaped by in their lives, is appealing to authority. In several ways they are already slaves, it's just a matter of choosing an authority that appears stronger or more beneficial to them. They will discard their ideas and people that own them in favour of others if it appears to them as being more prestigious and socially conforming, as they have a stronger basis for their self and feel more powerful (despite being little more than a tool, in reality having no power).
Ethan Cox
>"Agree with me or I will fucking kill you" is the most compelling argument possible. doesnt make an argument true
Ethan Sanchez
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Authority can be valid or invalid. Usually, appeals to authority are used to transfer valid authority to invalid authority, like claiming a mathematician's proof proves something the mathematician never intended to prove. It's only a fallacy if the argument relies on the authority of the speaker as opposed to the quality of their scholarship.
Elijah Cox
dumb sophist poster
Ryan Price
Most arguments would be better if people just said read x and read y instead of butchering their arguments.
Grayson Johnson
Sure but that can be a massive cop out especially if you're unprepared to argue >Someone says A >"well actually if you *furiously googles experts in the field who might disagree with A* read Expert C, you'll find out you're wrong" You don't even have to read them yourself
Daniel Collins
bump
Julian Myers
The whole point of a logical fallacy is that it fails to actually prove the point. Something is not true just because an authority believes it. It MAY be true, but that doesn't consitute whether you should believe it or not. In this case it is indeed a 100% move, because the fallacy opposes the idea that you should believe X because authority figure says or believes X.
Joseph Johnson
Of course it is a logical fallacy because there is no reason to believe that this "authority" cannot be wrong. Just because a person thinks so, does not make it so. Cant believe the brainlets on this board. Unless the authority is omniscient, of course
Nathan Bell
>logical fallacy Yes, it seems obvious, does it not?
But the whole "fallacy" speak and "arguing with brainlets" is reddit as fuck.
Kevin Torres
Why do black people do this?
Kayden Morgan
Because white people are actively bringing them into white countries where they can do this.
Ayden Clark
"debates" are the most reddit thing. Discussions are patrician
