Verecundiam, Argumentum, ad & Argumentum ad Populum
Edited, July 23, 2022, for an entry on academia.edu
Preface
In a 2021 Zoom meeting, Dean (known as Deeaann by his lovely wife, An jela) pondered on the use of appealing to a false authority by those challenging the effectiveness of western COVID-19 vaccines.
Verecundiam, Argumentum, ad:
Cited
'Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (Argument from Authority) Abstract: The argument from appeal to authority, the ad verecundiam fallacy, is...shown to be a fallacy when the appeal is to an irrelevant authority and nonfallacious when the appeal is to a relevant authority.'
---
Lander University documents an important distinction here. (Paraphrased) Appealing to an authority is not fallacious, but appealing to a false authority is fallacious.
Argumentum ad Populum
Cited
'Sometimes, the ad verecundiam and the ad populum fallacies overlap and are said to occur together.
Ad Populum: Appeal to Popularity Abstract: The Argumentum ad Populum is an argument, often emotionally laden, that claims a conclusion is true because most, all, or even an elite group people irrelevantly think, believe, or feel that it is. This argument is characterized here with many examples and shown to be sometimes persuasive but normally fallacious if there is no direct relevant evidence presented for the truth of its conclusion.'
---
As example, within the Church, is when people quote the well-known pastor and/or well-known teacher as an expert, as if he/she is obviously so highly regarded that his/her views cannot reasonably be challenged.
At a church apologetics conference once a proponent of libertarian free will implied there was no point in me disagreeing with his famous expert because this expert was like LeBron James.
I replied that I did not play basketball...
In contrast to ad populum, anyone can be reasonably challenged by a reasonable premise (s) and conclusion in disagreement.
Pirie
Cited
'The argumentum ad populum appeals to popular attitudes instead of presenting relevant material. In other words, it is based on prejudice. It exploits the known propensity of people to accept that which fits in comfortably with their preconceptions. The popular prejudices may or may not be justified, but the speaker who makes his case depending solely upon them is guilty of an ad populum fallacy. Pirie (165). Pirie explains that this fallacy can inflame passions and prejudices more appropriate to mass hysteria than to rational discourse. (165). Those that use this fallacy 'take the easy way out'. (165).
Blackburn
Blackburn, similarly to Pirie, states that this fallacy is 'appealing to the prejudices of the people.' (24).
My own relevant and obviously non-exhaustive examples: Significantly accepting the views of a known teacher over critiques of a less known teacher, because the known teacher is more popular. Not primarily because of the merits of argumentation. Considering one person in a romantic context over another significantly because it is more socially and culturally acceptable, not mainly based on character and other positive attributes.
Verecundiam, Argumentum, ad continued
Pirie
Cited
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...
Blackburn
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).
Blackburn 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).
Embracing and stating 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 true premise (s) leading to a reasonable and true conclusion is fallacious.
These are informal fallacies. Langer's work, that I have been reviewing deals more with formal logic.
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.
LANDER.EDU (1997-2020) Licensed under GFDL
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
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.
SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.
