Simpsons Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Doubtful Authority

Open captions change to closed captions during second half of video. Use of copyrighted content is protected by fair use which says that copyrighted content can be used so long as commentary is given. Definitions of logical fallacies come from Practical Argument by Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell.

[matthewbibby]

I find it kinda funny that he didn’t even give the worst explanation of evolution. Better than a lot of people’s understandings of it at least.

[MSG]

He also uses emotional manipulation at the end.

[SEBSEB]

I thought that was a pretty good argument given by the Darwin actor. Even if he doesn't have a background in biology, that doesn't mean he doesn't understand his argument if he was able to articulate it like that (even if it was just memorised). Darwin himself couldn't really have given a better explanation. And how do you know Blinky wasn't the result of a random natural mutation?

[marksesl]

For me, appeal to authority is always a fallacy. It is only the weight of an argument that matters, not who says it.

[fluffysheap]

Appeal to authority is *always* a fallacy. There is no "doubtful" weasel word.

No person's opinion is evidence of anything other than what that specific person believes.

If a person is really an authority, they should be able to produce a substantive document, a book or a scholarly article, with references to the actual evidence. Then the evidence can be evaluated on its own.

Even Einstein was wrong occasionally!

[pastapockets]

Good thing the Simpsons functions as my moral, ethical, and intellectual authority on all matters.

[elijahcordova]

Could this be considered an appeal to nature logical fallacy as well.

[malvoliosf]

The argument made by the Darwin-actor is perfectly sound. Either the genetic mutation is helpful, and will endure; or it’s isn’t, and will die out.

[timbuktu]

I'm not an actor but I do play one on TV.

[bigkkm]

Mr. Beat said to come here and say hi!

[horsehay]

Idk, Charles Darwin made a pretty good case in favor of Burns. Who's to say Blinky wasn't a product of natural selection?

[alwayslevitated]

"Blinky.!" 👁👁👁🤣😂
They sound like the type of advertisements you get on "YouTube" because you refuse to go "Premium.!" 🤭

[shapexon]

If an actual authority was making that wrong argument, and you appealed to it, would it still be a fallacy?

[hammad]

Darwinian evolution is a logical fallacy of appealing to false theory which is macro evolution human dna proves intelligent design

[Inkyminkyzizwoz]

There's a post going round about Harry Potter thanking Harry and Hermione for proving that boys and girls can simply be friends without there being anything romantic between them, but they're fictional characters and so can be whatever the author wants them to be, so aren't really 'proof' of anything. What sort of fallacy would that be, where you use something from fiction as proof of something being feasible or possible in the real world?