Nice work... did you change the locks to keep general_re out?
Posted on 12/20/2003 4:42:14 AM PST by general_re
In attempting to make up one's mind about some difficult or complicated question, it is entirely reasonable to be guided by the judgment of an acknowledged expert who has studied the matter thoroughly. When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgment, we commit no fallacy. Indeed, such recourse to authority is necessary for most of us on very many matters. Of course, an expert's judgment constitutes no conclusive proof; experts disagree, and even in agreement they may err; but expert opinion surely is one reasonable way to support a conclusion.
The fallacy ad verecundiam arises when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand. Thus, in an argument about morality, an appeal to the opinions of Darwin, a towering authority in biology, would be fallacious, as would be an appeal to the opinions of a great artist such as Picasso to settle an economic dispute. But care must be taken in determining whose authority is reasonably to be relied on, and whose rejected. While Picasso was not an economist, his judgment might plausibly be given some weight in a dispute pertaining to the economic value of an artistic masterpiece; and if the role of biology in moral questions were in dispute, Darwin might indeed be an appropriate authority.
The most blatant examples of misplaced appeals to authority appear in advertising "testimonials." We are urged to drive an automobile of a given make because a famous golfer or tennis player affirms its superiority; we are urged to drink a beverage of a certain brand because some movie star or football coach expresses enthusiasm about it. Wherever the truth of some proposition is asserted on the basis of the authority of one who has no special competence in that sphere, the appeal to misplaced authority is the fallacy committed.
This appears to be a simpleminded mistake that is easy to avoid, but there are circumstances in which the fallacious appeal is tempting, and therefore intellectually dangerous. Here are two examples. In the sphere of international relations, in which weapons and war unhappily play a major role, one opinion or another is commonly supported by appealing to those whose special competence lies in the technical design or construction of weapons. Physicists such as Robert Oppenheimer or Edward Teller, for example, may indeed have had the knowledge to give authoritative judgments regarding how certain weapons can (or cannot) function; but their knowledge in this sphere does not give them special wisdom in determining broad political goals. An appeal to the strong judgment of a distinguished physicist as to the wisdom of ratifying some international treaty would be an argument ad verecundiam. Similarly, we admire the depth and insight of great fiction — say, in the novels of Alexander Solzhenitsyn or Saul Bellow — but to resort to their judgment in determining the real culprit in some political dispute would be an appeal ad verecundiam.
Many persons offer themselves, or are presented by others, as "experts" in one field or another; yet determining whose authority is truly worthy to be relied upon is often a difficult matter. Suppose we want to know whether some proposition, p, is true. Suppose that some person. A, is alleged to be an expert about p, or propositions like p, and A says that p is true. What are the conditions under which A's saying so really gives us good reason to accept the truth of p? In real cases the answer depends, of course, upon what p asserts, and on the relation between A and propositions like p. In general, the question we must answer is this: Is A, by virtue of knowledge, experience, training, orgeneral circumstances, more able than we, who are discussing the matter, to judge whether or not p is true? If so, A's judgment has some value as evidence for us regarding the truth of p — although, of course, A's judgment may be weak evidence, perhaps more than counterbalanced by other considerations and perhaps outweighed by the testimony of still others who also have more knowledge about p than do we.
The argument ad verecundiam is an appeal to one who has no claim greater than our own to judge the truth of p. Even one who does have a legitimate claim to authority may well prove mistaken, of course, and we may later regret our choice of experts. But if the experts we chose deserved their reputation for knowledge about things like p (whatever p may be), it was no fallacy to rely upon them even if they erred. Our mistake becomes one of reasoning (a fallacy) when our conclusion is based upon the verdict of an authority having no rational claim to expertise in that matter.
Tomorrow's installment is everyone's favorite - the argument ad hominem.
Fundamentally, the conservative critique of socialism is that few indeed are virtuous enough to be trusted with the power socialism implies--and it is essentially impossible for anyone with that much virtue to get that much power (since the virtuous do not crave power for its own sake), and even then the moral virtue of the person(s) given the power will not give them the supreme knowledge and understanding of practical affairs needed to make that centralized decisionmaking superior to the decisions derived from the many, each in their own realm of expertise however humble or significant.
And the attraction of socialism for the celebrity is precisely its claim of the existence within its counsels of glories of virtue and intellectual capacity. The celebrity, as I use the term, is famous for virtues irrelevant to the issue of whether socialism has practical benefits for our posterity or, as conservatives are confident, disasterous practical effects in the short and the long run.
The celebrity, famous perhaps for a winning smile or physical dexterity, is offered the chance to join the counsels of the putatively virtuous and polymath intelligence by the simple expedient of yielding to pride. And many do.
Yes! This has been like the Dance of the Seven Veils, where you want someone to wake you up at about veil number 5.
Hope tomorrow's offering is replete with juicy examples.
Lawyers' income would quickly collapse without that helpful fallacy.
...could you or another Freeper also describe how a real debate works, the kind with real logic.
Depends on what you mean by "real debate". Do you mean as in a formal, structured debate - point-counterpoint, that kind of thing? Or do you mean logical arguments in the form of a syllogism?
That would imply a loyalty to reason first, and agenda second. Most arguments are after the fact--you believe what you believe, and reasons come second.
In fighting the fallacy, most often ignored is the power of the fallacy. More powerful, generally, than reason.
general_re's dog
Precisely. And for two reasons (!)
First is the rejection of reason as inadequate.
Second is the failure to understand that fallacy invalidates the argument.
I think it was the previous installment where someone talked about writing a book on the positive side of fallacies. An example of Rejection of reason.
I didn't even bother to respond because if a person has decided this, there is nothing one can say.
The problem is twofold. Are the premises valid? Do they actually derive from some verified evidence in reality?
And does the conclusion derive from the premises?
It is fashionable today to never examine the former and reject the laws of logic in arriving at the second.
This particular fallacy can be seen almost daily in the "This is not what the Founding Fathers intended." Where both sides use quotes from the same people to support opposing positions.
(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)
Ad verecundiam fallacy - (to authority or veneration). The appeal to authority rather than logical argument and verifiable evidence to support an idea. Authorities include: experts, teachers, leaders, customs, traditions, institutions (religions or ideologies), individuals holding respected positions in government, business, or other organizations, or any individuals or groups whose opinions are regarded as authoritative.
Using authority in argument or reason is not itself a fallacy, it is when authority is used instead of reason, or when the supposed authority is not a valid one, that a fallacy is committed.
The most common version of this fallacy is the appeal to "vague authority." Unspecified experts, masters, sages, adepts, studies, research, or documents are cited as though they were generally known and universally accepted. Always implicit in this version of the fallacy is the idea that anyone who does not know and accept the cited authority is stupid, ignorant, or "out of touch". Of course, if the authority is so well known, the arguer should have no trouble identifying it.
Examples:
"Scientists say that drilling for oil in Alaska will be an environmental disaster." What scientists, in what field, and did they say it as scientists or as socialists?
"Psychologist's studies show that home schooling for children whose parents are never home may not be successful." This example only seems ludicrous to those who are not familiar with recent pyschologist's studies. Evidence from such "expert studies" are routinely used to repudiate facts. In this case, it would take the form, "Psychologist's studies show that home schooling for children ... may not be successful." Look for this headline in any liberal newspaper or magazine.
Hank
This IS the basis of Global Warming. As more and more evidence comes in that it doesn't exist, certain people just keep sreaming the same assertion louder and louder. As you say:
"Scientists say that drilling for oil in Alaska will be an environmental disaster." What scientists, in what field, and did they say it as scientists or as socialists?
Perfect example in this regard. Most of the Global Warming nuts are UN socialists masquerading as scientists.
How about Meryl Streep being invited to testify before Congress on the status of farm women because of her experience of having PLAYED one in a movie? Policy is made on such twaddle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.