 |
| Rumoured toilet paper truck, somewhere in North America: Facebook |
Preface
Main source:
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Summary
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Originally published 20200404, revised for an entry on academia.edu on 20240704.
Defined
Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad: Pirie explains this is an appeal to false authority. (210). A key, quote '...it is a fallacy to suppose that an expert in one field can lend support in another. Unless one has special expertise, he is a false authority.' (210).
Pirie explains that 'Knowledge is specialized, and we have to accept the views of authorities to some extent.' (2010). There is a general reluctance to challenge the view of someone who appears much more qualified than ordinary people. (2010).
When this person (s), the source, is not reasonably qualified, this is an appeal to authority, Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad. (2010-2011). A related fallacy is an appeal to an identified authority. (2011). Supposedly, a highly qualified anonymous source (2011), would qualify as an appeal to an identified authority. These sources may or may not, be reliable, but as they are anonymous, Pirie explains, 'All we can do is to accept the apparent authority they have.' (2012).
Or not, I would add...
With his entry on authority, Blackburn states: 'A person, institution, or organization is said to have authority when the power it exercises is supposed legitimate...'(30). Blackburn mentions there is a system of 'norms' by which authority is assumed and asserted. (30). He acknowledges that there is 'scepticism about particular claims of authority...' (30). Based on his comments: Blackburn indicates that human society cannot function adequately without a significant acceptance of professional authority guiding that society. (30).
Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad: Pirie explains this is an appeal to false authority. (210). A key, quote '...it is a fallacy to suppose that an expert in one field can lend support in another. Unless one has special expertise, he is a false authority.' (210).
Pirie explains that 'Knowledge is specialized, and we have to accept the views of authorities to some extent.' (2010). There is a general reluctance to challenge the view of someone who appears much more qualified than ordinary people. (2010).
When this person (s), the source, is not reasonably qualified, this is an appeal to authority, Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad. (2010-2011). A related fallacy is an appeal to an identified authority. (2011). Supposedly, a highly qualified anonymous source (2011), would qualify as an appeal to an identified authority. These sources may or may not, be reliable, but as they are anonymous, Pirie explains, 'All we can do is to accept the apparent authority they have.' (2012).
Or not, I would add...
With his entry on authority, Blackburn states: 'A person, institution, or organization is said to have authority when the power it exercises is supposed legitimate...'(30). Blackburn mentions there is a system of 'norms' by which authority is assumed and asserted. (30). He acknowledges that there is 'scepticism about particular claims of authority...' (30). Based on his comments: Blackburn indicates that human society cannot function adequately without a significant acceptance of professional authority guiding that society. (30).
Cited
'Department of Philosophy Dr. Craig Hanks, Chair '
'Irrelevant Authority
The fallacy of irrelevant authority is committed when you accept without proper support for his or her alleged authority, a person's claim or proposition as true. Alleged authorities should only be used when the authority is reporting on his or her field of expertise, the authority is reporting on facts about which there is some agreement in his or her field, and you have reason to believe he or she can be trusted. Alleged authorities can be individuals or groups. The attempt to appeal to the majority or the masses is a form of irrelevant authority. The attempt to appeal to an elite or select group is a form of irrelevant authority.
Examples:
Brad Pitt was seen wearing Designer Bob's sunglasses, so they must be the best sunglasses to wear.
There is nothing to be learned from the East, for Gilbert Ryle, the great British philosopher once said, nothing but the sun rises in the East.
Nobody is a better judge than public opinion.
Pacifism is a good idea because the brilliant scientist Einstein advocated it.
Mom, why can't I get my tongue pierced? Everyone else is doing it.
Most of my friends say they stopped thinking about philosophy the minute they got through the semester, so I know this class is worthless.
Everyone loves the Danger Kitty album; they must be a great band.
I agree with Alec Baldwin's stance on global warming. He must know what he's talking about, being a famous celebrity and all.'
---
Cited
'Appeal to False Authority (also known as: appeal to doubtful authority, appeal to dubious authority, appeal to improper authority, appeal to inappropriate authority, appeal to irrelevant authority, appeal to misplaced authority, appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority)
Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made. Also see the appeal to authority.
Logical Forms: According to person 1 (who offers little or no expertise on Y being true), Y is true. Therefore, Y is true.'
'References:
Hume, D. (2004) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Courier Corporation.'
---
 |
| Not too far away... |
My examples
Professor Jones is an expert on the Hebrew Bible, therefore he is an expert on philosophy.
Pastor Jones is a popular preacher, therefore he is an excellent theologian.
My take, non-exhaustively, is that authority is worthy of trust when he/she, the source, often professionally, is through the use of specialized, research, knowledge and evidence, providing reasonable and true premises supporting a true conclusion. Providing a sound argument, which is an argument with all true premises. Or at least, reasonable, true, statements/propositions are provided by a true, actual, authority if not an argument (s). It is true, of course, that a legitimate authority could be in error on a topic and issue.
Within a topic in context, embracing to significant degrees, propositions and/or arguments from non-experts, those without specialized, research, knowledge and evidence that are highly reliant on types of speculation, is Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad/Appeal to false authority. This done without reasonable and true propositions and/or reasonable and true premises leading to a reasonable and true conclusion, through, for example, the use of feelings, hunches and guessing is both the fallacy as described and is a philosophical error.
My take, non-exhaustively, is that authority is worthy of trust when he/she, the source, often professionally, is through the use of specialized, research, knowledge and evidence, providing reasonable and true premises supporting a true conclusion. Providing a sound argument, which is an argument with all true premises. Or at least, reasonable, true, statements/propositions are provided by a true, actual, authority if not an argument (s). It is true, of course, that a legitimate authority could be in error on a topic and issue.
Within a topic in context, embracing to significant degrees, propositions and/or arguments from non-experts, those without specialized, research, knowledge and evidence that are highly reliant on types of speculation, is Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad/Appeal to false authority. This done without reasonable and true propositions and/or reasonable and true premises leading to a reasonable and true conclusion, through, for example, the use of feelings, hunches and guessing is both the fallacy as described and is a philosophical error.
---
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.
No comments:
Post a Comment