John Berry wrote:
Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these
others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact --
that is, scientific evidence. If these people deny the facts about
cold fusion or global warming, and you beleive them, you have have
made another logical error. See:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
No, because you'd never base everything on a an appeal to authority
would you?
No, I never do. I had excellent teachers and I learned to avoid all
of the common logical errors of this type. I often point to experts,
and I defer to their authority, but this is NOT an appeal to
authority. There is a great deal of confusion about this, so I
suggest you read the Nizkor site definition carefully.
To simplify, an "appeal to authority" fallacy should more properly
called "an appeal to false authority." That is, a citation of a
person who thinks he is an authority, or claims he is, but who
actually is not. For example, suppose we are discussing
electrochemistry and you cite an opinion or statement by Bockris. You
have made a good point, because Bockris understands electrochemistry
and his pronouncements on the subject carry weight. If I try to
counter you by citing statements by Gary Taubes (from his book), that
would be an appeal to authority fallacy because even though Taubes
claims he knows this subject, he does not.
Not only should the person in question be an actual authority, he
should offer a cogent explanation for his views. If Bockris were to
say, "I'm right and I do not need to tell you why" he would be
abusing his authority. (He would never do that, but some other
experts do.) Quoting Nizkor:
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a
legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is
not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument
will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is
not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact
that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any
justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact
that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any
rational reason to accept the claim as true.
. . .
Nizkor make other important clarifications, such as: "Determining
whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often
be very difficult. . . ." I suggest you read this carefully.
Please note that logical errors of this type are well established.
Most were discovered and named by ancient Greek and Roman
philosophers. There is no point to making mistakes such as "An Appeal
To Authority" (or "Ad Verecundiam" as they said in Ancient Rome ),
"Slippery Slope" or "Appeal to Tradition" in a scientific discussion.
It is like making an elementary arithmetic error. You can easily
avoid these things with a little practice.
- Jed
