argument from authority

This argument is a form of genetic fallacy; in which the conclusion about the validity of a statement is justified by appealing to the characteristics of the person who is speaking, such as also in the ad hominem fallacy.{{cite web |last=Williamson |first=Owen |title=Master List of Logical Fallacies |url=http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm|publisher=The University of Texas at El Paso}} For this argument, Locke coined the term argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to shamefacedness/modesty) because it appeals to the fear of humiliation by appearing disrespectful to a particular authority.{{Cite journal |last=Goodwin |first=Jean |date=May 1998 |title=Forms of Authority and the Real Ad Verecundiam |url=https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007756117287 |journal=Argumentation |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=267–280 |doi=10.1023/A:1007756117287 |via=Springer Science+Business Media}}

This qualification as a logical fallacy implies that this argument is invalid when using the deductive method, and therefore it cannot be presented as infallible.{{cite book|last1=Garrett|first1=Aaron|title= The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy |year=2014 |pages=280 |publisher= Routledge |isbn=9781317807926 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=3fojAwAAQBAJ |quote= "demonstrations proceed deductively while probable reasoning involves inductive inferences."}} In other words, it is logically invalid to prove a claim is true simply because an authority has said it. The explanation is: authorities can be wrong, and the only way of logically proving a claim is providing real evidence or a valid logical deduction of the claim from the evidence.{{cite web|last1= McBride|first1= Michael|title= Retrospective Scientific Evaluation|url= https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret|publisher= Yale University|access-date= 2017-08-10|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100724053801/https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret|archive-date= 2010-07-24|url-status= dead}}{{cite book|last1= Zinser|first1= Otto|title= Basic Principles of Experimental Psychology|date= 1984|page= 37|publisher= McGraw-Hill|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=XcBtP1TpAcUC&q=%22accept+claims+on+the+authority%22|isbn= 9780070728455}}{{cite book|last1= Stephen|first1= Leslie|title= The Science of Ethics|publisher= G. P. Putnam's sons|page= viii|url= https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175355|year= 1882}}

When used in the inductive method, which implies the conclusions can not be proven with certainty, this argument can be considered a inductive argument the general form of this type of argument is:

{{quote|

Person(s) {{var|A}} claims that {{var|X}} is true.

Person(s) {{var|A}} is an expert in the field concerning {{var|X}}.

Therefore, {{var|X}} should be believed.{{cite web|url=https://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html|title=Misleading Appeal to Authority|last=Curtis|first=Gary N.|website=The Fallacy Files|access-date=2021-07-08}}

|author=|title=|source=}}

Inductively it can be used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the cited authority in the given context.{{cite web |title=Fallacies |url=https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/ |publisher=University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill}}

It is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered. Other related fallacious arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor.{{cite web |last1=Ruggiero |first1=Tim |title=Logical Fallacies |url=http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#argumentum%20ad%20lazarum%20--%20The%20fallacy%20of%20supposing%20a%20conclusion%20is%20valid%20because%20the%20argument%20is%20made%20by%20a%20poor%20person.%20It%20is%20the%20opposite%20of%20the%20ad%20crumenam%20fallacy.}} When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is an "appeal to the common man".{{cite web|last1=Bennett|first1=Bo|title=Appeal to the Common Man|url=http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/24-appeal-to-common-folk|website=Logically Fallacious}}

Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science.{{cite book|last1= Stevenson|first1= I.|title= Some of My Journeys in Medicine|date= 1990|publisher= The University of Southwestern Louisiana|page= 18|url= https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2015/11/some-of-my-journeys-in-medicine.pdf}}{{cite journal|last1= Quick|first1= James Campbell|last2= Little|first2= Laura M.|last3= Cooper|first3= Cary L.|last4= Gibbs|first4= Philip C.|last5= Nelson|first5= Debra|journal= International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology|date= 2010|page= 278|title= Organizational Behavior|url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229724832}} Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.' ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."{{cite book|last1= Sagan|first1= Carl|title= The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Yz8Y6KfXf9UC&q=Arguments+from+authority |publisher= Ballantine Books |date= July 6, 2011 |isbn= 9780307801043}}

One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,{{Citation|first= Theophilus S.|last= Painter|title= Studies in mammalian spermatogenesis. II. The spermatogenesis of man|journal= Journal of Experimental Zoology|volume= 37|issue= 3|date= April 1923|pages= 291–336|doi= 10.1002/jez.1400370303}} when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,{{cite journal|last1= Mertens|first1= Thomas|title= The Role of Factual Knowledge in Biology Teaching|journal= The American Biology Teacher|date= October 1979|volume= 41|issue= 7|doi= 10.2307/4446671|pages= 395–419|jstor= 4446671}} that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,{{Citation|last1= Tjio|first1= Joe Hin|last2= Levan|first2= Albert|date= May 1956|title= The Chromosome Number of Man|journal= Hereditas|doi= 10.1111/j.1601-5223.1956.tb03010.x|volume= 42|issue= 1–2|pages= 723–4|pmid= 345813|doi-access= free}} scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,{{Citation | last= O'Connor |first= Clare |year= 2008 |title= Human Chromosome Number |publisher= Nature |url= http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Human-Chromosome-Number-294 |access-date= April 24, 2014}}{{cite journal|last1= Gartler|first1= Stanley|title= The Chromosome Number in Humans: A Brief History|journal= Nature Reviews Genetics|date= 2006|volume= 7|issue= 8|pages= 655–60|url= http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/The-chromosome-number-in-humans-a-brief-15575|doi= 10.1038/nrg1917|pmid= 16847465|s2cid= 21365693}} despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.{{cite book|last1= Glass|first1= Bentley|title= Theophilus Shickel Painter|date= 1990|publisher= National Academy of Sciences|location= Washington, DC|pages= 316–17|url= http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/painter-theophilus-shickel.pdf}}{{cite book|last1= Orrell|first1= David PhD.|title= The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction|date= 2008|pages= [https://archive.org/details/futureofeverythi0000orre/page/184 184]–85|title-link= Apollo's Arrow}} Even textbooks with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24 based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.{{cite journal|last1= Kevles|first1= Daniel J.|title= Human Chromosomes--Down's Disorder and the Binder's Mistakes|journal= Engineering and Science|date= 1985|page= 9|url= http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/594/2/Kevles.pdf}}

This seemingly established number generated confirmation bias among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so". Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence", and scientists who obtained the accurate number modified{{cite journal|last1= T. C.|first1= Hsu|title= Out of the Dark Ages: Human and Mammalian Cytogenetics: An Historical Perspective|journal= Cell|date= 1979|url= http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/0092-8674%2879%2990249-6.pdf|doi= 10.1016/0092-8674(79)90249-6|volume= 18|issue= 4|pages= 1375–1376|s2cid= 54330665}} or discarded{{cite journal|last1= Unger|first1= Lawrence|last2= Blystone|first2= Robert|title= Paradigm Lost: The Human Chromosome Story|journal= Bioscene|date= 1996|url= http://amcbt.indstate.edu/volume_22/v22-2p3-9.pdf|access-date= 2016-03-24|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060905015828/http://amcbt.indstate.edu/volume_22/v22-2p3-9.pdf|archive-date= 2006-09-05|url-status= dead}} their data to agree with Painter's count.

Arguments from authority that are based on the idea that a person should conform to the opinion of a perceived authority or authoritative group are rooted in psychological cognitive biases{{Cite book |doi = 10.1057/9780230297616_5|chapter = Social Influence: Modes and Modalities|title = The Social Psychology of Communication|pages = 87–106|year = 2011|last1 = Sammut|first1 = Gordon|last2 = Bauer|first2 = Martin W|isbn = 978-0-230-24736-9|url = https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/83138/1/Social_influence_modes_and_modalities_2011.pdf}} such as the Asch effect.{{cite news|last1=Delameter|first1=Andrew|title=Contrasting Scientific & Non-Scientific Approaches to Acquiring Knowledge|url=http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/psych/delam/57/Lecture1.pptx|agency=City University of New York|date=2017}}{{cite book|last1=Sheldon|first1=Brian|last2=Macdonald|first2=Geraldine|title=A Textbook of Social Work|date=2010|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dt6NAgAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|page=40|isbn=9781135282615}}{{cite web |last1=Bates |first1=Jordan |title=12 Psychological Tactics Donald Trump Uses to Manipulate the Masses |date=16 March 2016 |url=https://highexistence.com/12-psychological-tactics-donald-trump-uses-to-manipulate-the-masses/ |at=11. Appeals to Authority}} In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.{{Citation |last= McLeod| first= Samuel| year= 2008| title= Asch Experiment| publisher= Simply Psychology|url= http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html}}

Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers found that "Participants reported considerable distress under the group pressure", with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.{{Citation |last= Webley| first= Paul| title= A partial and non-evaluative history of the Asch effect| publisher=University of Exeter|url= http://people.exeter.ac.uk/PWebley/psy1002/asch.html}}

Another study shining light on the psychological basis of the fallacy as it relates to perceived authorities are the Milgram experiments, which demonstrated that people are more likely to go along with something when it is presented by an authority.{{cite journal | last1 = Milgram | first1 = S | year = 1965 | title = Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority | journal = Human Relations | volume = 18 | issue = 1| pages = 57–76 | doi=10.1177/001872676501800105| s2cid = 37505499 }} In a variation of a study where the researchers did not wear lab coats, thus reducing the perceived authority of the tasker, the obedience level dropped to 20% from the original rate, which had been higher than 50%. Obedience is encouraged by reminding the individual of what a perceived authority states and by showing them that their opinion goes against this authority.

Scholars have noted that certain environments can produce an ideal situation for these processes to take hold, giving rise to groupthink.{{Cite web|url=https://disruptedphysician.blog/2014/12/page/2/|title=December 2014 – Page 2|website=Disrupted Physician|date=22 December 2014 }} In groupthink, individuals in a group feel inclined to minimize conflict and encourage conformity. Through an appeal to authority, a group member might present that opinion as a consensus and encourage the other group members to engage in groupthink by not disagreeing with this perceived consensus or authority.Definition of GROUPTHINK. (2017). Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groupthink{{cite web|last1=Rossi|first1=Stacey (2006)|title=Examination of Exclusion Rates in Massachusetts Public Schools|url=http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492086.pdf}} One paper about the philosophy of mathematics states that, within academia,

If...a person accepts our discipline, and goes through two or three years of graduate study in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking, and is no longer the critical outsider he once was...If the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit.{{cite book|last1=David|first1=Phillip J.|last2=Hersh|first2=Reuben|title=New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics|date=1998|publisher=Princeton University Press|page=8|url=http://users-cs.au.dk/danvy/the-ideal-mathematician.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042349/http://users-cs.au.dk/danvy/the-ideal-mathematician.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2016-03-04}}

Corporate environments are similarly vulnerable to appeals to perceived authorities and experts leading to groupthink,{{cite web|last1=Lookwin|first1=B. (2015)|title=Biopharma Training|url=http://www.biopharminternational.com/raising-bar-biopharma-training|access-date=2017-09-12|archive-date=2017-09-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170912195209/http://www.biopharminternational.com/raising-bar-biopharma-training|url-status=dead}} as are governments and militaries.{{cite journal|last1=Janis|first1=Irving L.|title=Groupthink|journal=Psychology Today|date=1971|url=http://agcommtheory.pbworks.com/f/GroupThink.pdf}}

{{Div col}}

• Authority bias
• Credentialism
• Ipse dixit
• Manifesto of the Ninety-Three
• Name-dropping
• Nobel disease
• Philosophy of testimony

{{Div col end}}

{{Notelist}}

{{Reflist}}

{{Fallacies}}

Category:Authority

Category:Genetic fallacies

Category:Relevance fallacies