I collect logical fallacies just like I collect words. I find them fun and interesting, particularly when listening to speeches made in public forums - the State Legislature, the House of Representatives, Rush Limbaugh, etc. I recently was reminded of one particular type that is somewhat pervasive (quoting from wikipedia - ironically...)
"Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect), argumentum ad potentiam (Latin: argument to power), or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."
"Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect), argumentum ad potentiam (Latin: argument to power), or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."
People like this a lot. It seems to absolve them of logical reasoning for themselves, or presenting a valid argument that they have deduced on their own. I am of the mind that people and their experiences alone are sufficiently authoritative - that one cannot refute the experience of another prima facie. But I have heard all kinds of crazy claims made because Authority X has said that it must be true, and therefore it is.
People must learn to make up their own minds. People must come to trust their own experience. Certainly wisdom lies in gleaning gems of knowledge from the vast compendium of experiences out there. But we are all given the ability and right and responsibility to reason and judge for ourselves what is right and best and true. I would not abdicate that right to anyone for any reason.
Comments