|
|
Invincible Authority |
| Description: | ||
|
||
| The argument supports a position by naming a respected and authoritative person, institution or organization that endorses the position. It is implied that this endorsement alone is sufficient to establish the truth of the position without regard to the arguments on either side. | ||
|
|
||
| Examples: | ||
| "Linus Pauling says that Vitamin C helps fight colds, so I'm going to take a double dose." | ||
| "The world was created in seven literal days. It says so in the Bible." | ||
|
|
||
| Discussion: | ||
| The term "invincible" authority stresses that the opinion of
an expert is being used as a final appeal, without consideration of the
(possibly quite valid) arguments that such an expert might be able to offer. Some logicians consider
appeals to authority to be fallacious only in cases
in which the person (or institution) whose authority is appealed to is not in fact an authority.
Hence celebrity endorsement of products is clearly a fallacy, but adopting opinions on
physics based on the say-so of Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein would not be.
I disagree with this view. It should be noted that experts often hold
differing opinions even in their field of expertise. Hawking and Einstein
hold dramatically different views on physics, for example; yet, both are
undeniably experts. Accepting positions on the opinion of one expert or
another (without considering the underlying arguments) has no tendency to
lead us closer to the truth. It never gives us guidance on which
expert to believe. Thus, in my opinion (and I am an expert on this
subject!) appeals to authority should be considered fallacious even when
the authority appealed to is a legitimate and recognized authority. Invincible Authority does, however, mimic a legitimate pattern of reasoning. It must be remembered that experts become experts by having reasons for their opinions. These reasons are examined by other people interested in the subject (including other experts). People generally come to be recognized as experts because their reasons make sense to others. For those of us who do not have the time (or talent) to consider the arguments for ourselves, it is certainly better to adopt the opinions of an expert than the opinions of a non-expert. This is why checking the credentials of authors is an important step in judging the reliability of sources used in research. There is certainly no fallacy in naming an expert as the originator of arguments that are then explained and considered. But there is an important difference between using the credentials of an author as one criterion for the reliability of information, and using the credentials of the author as certifying that a position is true. |
||
|
|
| Classification: A Fallacy of Irrelevance (a deductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premiss) in the personal Ad Verecundiam family. | ||
|
||
| Source: This fallacy is described by Francis Bacon in Novum Organum. The term "ad verecundiam," first applied to this fallacy, was coined by John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690. | ||
|
||
Go to: WELCOME EXPLANATION of PRINCIPLES TABLE of FALLACIES EXERCISES INDEX