No, I think the fallacy is about transparency, for the most part. Perhaps we could call it "appeal to an oracle" instead. If you rely on an expert in building your argument, then presumably, if we tracked down that expert, she could delineate all the reasoning she used to arrive at her conclusion. (Her conclusion being an axiom in your argument.)
If, however, you appeal to a non-expert in the subject and rely on her non-expert conclusion, then if you wanted to avoid the fallacy, you'd have to peel apart the non-expert's reasoning. The non-expert's conclusion can't stand as an axiom. This is, essentially, the argument for open-source. On 10/03/2017 04:36 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Wait a minute, guys. Isn't it difficult to have an argument for more than a > few seconds without appealing to authority. After all: where did you get > that statistic? Did you do the research yourself? An argument of the > following form is an explicit appeal to authority, yet it is not a fallacy, > is it? All statements by Donald Trump are true, Donald trump believes a > great many immigrants are rapists and murderers, therefore a great many > immigrants are rapists and murderers. The argument valid but wrong, only > because it starts from a false premise. > > So, if all arguments must eventually be based on premises derived from > authorities, what separates appropriate and inappropriate appeals to > authority? In adequate citation? -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
