The Authority Fallacy | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com

Become better at arguing! We dive into the Authority fallacy and show you who to avoid it.

Watch the Logical Fallacy playlist:

Watch the whole playlist in one video:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

MUSIC:

"Dream Of Autumn" by Night Shift Master

"Dizor" by Outsider

"Lets go back to the rock" by Outsider

"Something like this" by Outsider

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Want some more Idea Channel?

Are Video Games About Their Mechanics?

How To Create Responsible Social Criticism

What Do Hot Sauce Labels Say About America?

Does Pop Culture Need To Be Popular?

[TheDragonWalrus]

Well I don't know about all of that, but if Mike says so I guess its true.

[jcfreak]

You haven't quite gotten this fallacy right. The problem is that there are two types of the Authority Fallacy: the formal fallacy and the informal fallacy. What you described above is the informal fallacy. However, you then explicitly deny that the formal fallacy is a fallacy. Let me explain. 

If we take the syllogism:
John is an expert on topic S
John says A about S
Therefore A is true

Well, this in incorrect. Experts do get things wrong, and as do consensuses. For instance the consensus of scientists used to believe that the atom was indivisible. This is not longer excepted by the consensus of scientists. So which consensus is right? 

The problem with the syllogism is the conclusion is too far reaching. The following argument thought is valid:
John is an expert on topic S
John says A about S
Therefore A is more likely to be true.

Expert opinion should increase the probability of something being true, but it does not make it true. 

With an informal fallacy, the logic is sound, but a premise is clearly false. So for an informal authority fallacy, it would take the same logical form as the second syllogism, but the first premise, namely that John is a legit authority, is false. This is basically what you are talking about in the video. Such as a big fish in a small pond, an expert speaking outside their field, or someone who just considers themselves an authority are all examples of these false authorities, and are therefore examples of the informal authority argument. 

[EugenAntunGojks]

Explains what's an authority fallacy, then produces an authority fallacy in the first 20 seconds.

[h.b.c.reloaded]

“Appealing to the scientific consensus on climate change is not an appeal to authority fallacy “...

Right, it’s an appeal to consensus fallacy.

[d_e_a_n]

I've heard the authority fallacy defined different ways. Sometimes it is split as appeal to false authority which is easy to see as a fallacy and appeal to (legitimate) authority. But is not an appeal to a legitimate authority still a fallacy? Because if the authority is using any sort of reason to support his belief, then we should just appeal to that reason rather than a person who states that belief. If there is no reason or evidence behind his belief then it shouldn't be believed. And if there is a reason behind it, then cut out the middle man and just appeal to reason. The thing the person says isn't true or false BECAUSE he is an authority, even if he is likely to be right because of it. The other thing is, to a Catholic for example, the Pope is an authority on the bible, but to an atheist or protestant, the Pope isn't an expert. So rather than pitting your "expert" against my "expert" the actual evidence is wha5 should be considered. Therfore aren't all appeals to authority essentially pointless?

[DarkMatter]

" My Dad works at Nintendo. "

[loveisthelaw]

And they are only “experts” that YOU deem experts.

[LeftThumbBreak]

Somehow after COVID, using authorities as proof in any context isn't convincing. His example as valid use would include the cdc, Who, ...NHS...

[AtheistAlias]

This comment section makes me happy. Yes, any appeal to any authority is an example of the fallacy. Authorities are just people and people aren't reliable. Even all legitimate credentials are an implicit example of the fallacy.

I think why people are trying to redefine this fallacy is because it means you have to wrestle with the idea that it can be reasonable to believe a technically fallacious position.

[karlpoppins]

The most tricky kind of this fallacy is when, for instance, people use scientist X as an authority in a field different from theirs. It's quite common to see comments like "Einstein said this so it's correct", yet what Einstein had said was about epistimology, philosophy, etc but not about physics, which was his area of authority.

[Ucube]

Scientists are concerned with Data. Scientists are not concerned consensus.
Lawyers are concerned with consensus. Therefore: Authority fallacy applies to consensus theories with 400yr/4.6Bil yr data ratio.

[Johnathan_The_Terrible]

This is practically devolves the argument into a contest of whoever has the most rubber stamps on their cited sources, rather than a discussion based on the reason and evidence at hand.

[thurin]

0:42 no, but it is an example of misinformation if not downright lie. changing the parameters of your model to provide a desired outcome is not producing evidence of your thesis.

[UbarSkwerl]

Using a fallacy doesn't defeat your claim, it's more accurate to call it a weak argument. Saying that someone defeats their claim if they use a fallacy is a fallacy fallacy.

[bensutherland]

What about if you make a point about the justifications of incarceration and someone argues "What experience do you have of the justice system?" I feel it is opposite but similar in that they are not attacking the argument, but insinuating that your argument is not as valid because of the lack of experience.

[ksmoker]

With respect, I don't think that Mike quite got the actual distinction between a fallacious appeal to authority and a legitimate appeal to the heterogeneous consensus of experts quite right. What makes the formal Appeal to Authority fallacious, in other words, is not so much that one is appealing to an authority who lacks the requisite expertise on the topic being discussed, but that the person making the appeal assumes that *because* his or her "authority" has claimed something, the thing being claimed, therefore, is (or ought to be considered), for no other reason and without regards or appeal to any other evidence, true.  

In the case, therefore, of those who appeal to the scientific consensus on global warming when seeking to persuade others that global warming is real, the relevant difference between what those people are doing in that case (when the appeal is *not* fallacious), vis-a-vis those who are committing a *fallacious* appeal to authority, is not that the scientists happen to be experts, whereas someone else's "authority" is merely a know-nothing; but, rather, the difference lies in the fact that, while the former group has a respect for the scientific consensus (and thus thinks (and argues) that others ought not lightly dismiss it), they are still attempting to persuade others on the basis of the actual evidence (and are not, therefore, formally arguing that simply because the majority of scientists say one thing, whatever they say, therefore, should be considered true). The latter group (i.e., those who are actually formally committing a fallacious appeal to authority), in contrast, believes something (and thinks that the rest of us ought to believe it too) solely on the basis of the putative authority of the person making the claim.  

Science, in other words, confers a prima facie, or tentative, respect upon any consensus that has been achieved precisely because of the methodological constraints that science places on its own inquiry which make such consensus unlikely to occur in the absence of truth. Understanding this reality lends credence to any claim that happens to garner enough support to achieve a well-accepted status. But, this is *not* the reason we believe it. Such claims are still capable of being false, and it is the totality of *evidence, * therefore, upon which any scientific claim, regardless of its number of supporters, must and does still rest.  

Understanding this and the legitimate epistemic weight of the phenomenon of consensus is one thing, as is giving such consensus (even if fallible) the prima facia respect it deserves (say, by not dismissing it lightly or out-of-hand), but this is markedly different from a blatant appeal to authority in which a person says that a claim must be true simply because a source he or she respects says it is. When a person, for example, says that something must be true simply because their holy book says it is, that is a perfect example of a fallacious appeal to authority, and the difference between this and what others are doing when they point to the heterogeneous consensus of experts on an issue is hopefully obvious.

Much respect, Mike! Love the channel!

[chuckporter]

Man, I'm going to stop teaching classes and just start showing your videos every day.

[history]

This is so wrong it teeters on the line between irony and manipulation.
His example is called "differing to experts" which is not a logical fallacy. And he uses it pretending to be an expert on logical fallacies to describe the logical fallacy of "appealing to authority."

[doubeld.]

I'd like to add onto this fallacy.
Just because a person is an expert in a neighboring field, does not make the person an expert in the field that is discussed.
A scientist in chemistry is not an expert in biology and thus using him in a biology argument is still a authority fallacy even though he is claimed to be a scientist.
His authority in biology is as much accepted as yours or mine, which is none.

[Sillydilly]

You managed to get this fallacy completely and totally wrong, within the first 35 seconds. Congrats.