Embedded Files
The ad verecundiam logical fallacy occurs when an arguer cites someone or something that cannot qualify as an authority on what is being debated. It also notes that a single "expert" can be wrong. This might be a fallacy because the "expert" doesn't know enough about the topic to qualify as an authority or because, while he/she may have the necessary credentials to be considered an authority on the topic, he/she may be biased and lose credibility because of this fact or just be plain wrong this one time. What does Neymar know about cars? Ever go to Jürgen Klopp's Steak House? What does he know about steak? Sure, a doctor of the respiratory system might be an expert on whether smoking is good or bad for me, but what if he/she is related to the owner of Phillip Morris Tobacco Company? What if she slept through the smoking unit in Medical School but managed to graduate with exemplary grades in all of the other units? Can he/she be trusted to be relied upon as a proper authority on the topic? Fair or not, citing this doctor compromises the argument of the person who cited them.
As Carl Sagan once said: "Arguments from authority carry little weight--'authorities' have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future."
The argument itself is much more important than who is making the argument.
There are three subcategories of the ad verecundiam fallacy:
Testimony by an expert: This is not automatically a fallacy; however, when an expert is introduced, the background should be examined as to experience, success, time, and transfer. (Former Green Bay Packers Coach Mike McCarthy and kicker Mason Crosby telling you that Cellcom is awesome? What do they know about cell phones? Wouldn't it be wiser to listen to a cellular phone expert?
Majority claim of authority: This is an endorsement by a large number of people. It doesn't matter how many people claim something... even 99% of the population could be wrong and the majority is not necessarily the authority on something.
It was generally accepted that the world was flat at some point in our history. The majority's claim to authority was worthless.
Authority vested in a society's laws, principles, etc.: Maxims, documents, holy books, etc. are relevant in and of themselves only to the particular society or culture from which they come.
Everything Hitler did was legal because he made the laws. Legality, according to the culture from which he came, clearly does not transcend logic. Wrong is wrong regardless of whether it's legal or illegal. As we read in The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver, lewd behavior as defined by American laws is not the same thing in a Congolese village. Also, the holy book brought to the Congo by the Price family doesn't have the same authority with the people of the Congo as it does with the people in Jackson, Mississippi.
Example: Senator Smith says, "I'm no scientist, but it's been downright cold this winter. Obviously, Global Warming doesn't exist."
The warming of the Earth is a FACT. It's measurable, and the numbers do not lie. It's not debatable any more than arguing whether bacon or the number five exists. While there is a debate about the causes of Global Warming (even though 97% of climatologists agree that its cause is human in nature), Global Warming itself cannot be disputed... especially by someone who is, in fact, a senator and not a scientist.
Example: You should buy the Cessna TTx model prop plane because Mr. Spagnolo, your favorite English teacher, endorses the Cessna TTx.
(FINE PRINT: Mr. Spagnolo knows nothing about what makes a quality airplane.)
Example: Jenny McCarthy (former Playboy model) talks about vaccines...
Why don't we just listen to doctors or scientists instead of Jenny McCarthy? Is she really the best authority on this topic? She also uses a clear post hoc; ergo, propter hoc fallacy.
Causation or correlation?
(Adapted from: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/)
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse