The Argumentum ad Verecundiam is the fallacy of appealing to authority. Specifically, appealing to an inappropriate authority, like people who sell duck calls, or sing and dance when considering national policy.
Actually, an appeal to authority is always problematic, since the reason we are appealing is that we do not know the truth of what we are asserting, but are basing our claim on the opinion of another. Now a proper appeal to an authority would be an appeal to a real authority, someone with knowledge of the truth of our thesis. But if we don't know enough to affirm our claim on our own, we also probably do not know enough to judge whether our "authority" is veridical, or a quack. So, if you can verify an authority, you don't need one. If you need an authority, you are operating on trust, and that trust could be misplaced.
This is why the fallacy is explicit in situations where the alleged "authority" obviously has no more expertise on the question than anyone else, but has stature in some other area. When a celebrity endorses something, this is a case of the ad verecundiam. When a reality TV actor runs for office based on mere name recognition, well, good luck with that.
At one point in history, the Greek Philosopher Aristotle was given the title "The Philosopher", especially by Doctor Angelicus. It was common to end arguments by citing The Philosopher, and adding, "Ipse Dixit", "he himself said so." Appeal to authority, and while Aristotle was no Runaway1956 of philosophers, perhaps this trusted a bit too much. Even Aristotle could be wrong.
This leads to our current problem with ad verecundiam fallacies. We do not have the same knowledge as the expert, but if we recognize there is such a thing as expertise and valuable knowledge that is difficult to obtain, we need to distinguish between actual experts and frauds. This is where the lay public has to rely on the body of experts, such that if the majority of experts agree that some individual is an expert, we can rely on that vouchsafing. This is why doctors, engineers, philosophers, and even lawyers, are trained, educated, and certified by members of their own profession. Anyone who hangs their own shingle, without such recognition, is suspect, like certain alleged eye-doctors in Kentucky.
Now with science, we also rely on professional recognition, though it is a bit more amorphous. Climate change is a area where the majority is clearly on one side. But of course, that still does not mean they could not be wrong, as the history of science teaches us about majority opinions, even among scientists. Of course, that is no reason to go the other way, and deny climate change. This is this going too far with being suspect of authorities, and that is our problem today. Runaway's opinion is as good as anyone's, as an opinion. As a truth, however, it leaves much to be desired. And then there is Dr. Fauci. You see where this is going.
One sign of a proper authority is humility. Non-cavalier.
We have a recent case, when on CNN, Peter Navarro, President Trump's anti-Sinic trade advisor, got into a fight about hydroxychloroquine. Transcript from MSN:
CNN’s Erin Burnett Gets in Bonkers Hydroxychloroquine Fight With Peter Navarro CNN’s Erin Burnett and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro got in a wild fight over Dr. Anthony Fauci and hydroxychloroquine during their 12-minute interview Wednesday night.
“Erin, this is just so unacceptable behavior. To me, it’s so un-American. What’s always puzzled me from the onset of this crisis is here we have are the Chinese communist virus effectively sending a virus over here — whether it was done by accident or on purpose, I don’t know — but they send it over here and kill over 150,000 Americans, cause trillions of dollars of damage. Instead of being angry at them, we’re angry at each other. I’ve never seen America—”
Gets better.
"Right, but you’re the one who wrote an op-ed that said Anthony Fauci has been wrong on everything we’ve talked about,” Burnett responded.
“But those are fair policy disputes,” Navarro shot back.
“How is that your lane and stimulus isn’t?” Burnett asked.
Yeah, how?
“Peter, first of all, you’re an economist, not a scientist,” Burnett said as the two talked over each other.
The two began to go back-and-forth over specific studies related to hydroxychloroquine and which doctors agree with them and why. Burnett said five peer reviewed studies show it not to be true, and Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx don’t recommend taking it, which Navarro took issue to.
“You can’t do this,” Navarro said.
“I need to do this, Peter,” Burnett responded. “What you’re saying is irresponsible.”
Well, there it is. Appeal to actual authorities, like experts in medical science and the consensus of a discipline, rather than the opinion of a crackpot economist dismissed by his peers. Actually, that "economist, not a scientist" has to hurt: Economists for decades have been trying to hold themselves out as the "physicists of the social sciences." But Peter does the ad verecundiam, and very well, as fallacies go.
“All right, let me say this to you,” Navarro said before pausing. “I reach out to all your viewers. Scott Adams — you know Scott Adams, right? He’s the guy who wrote the Dilbert cartoon. He did a beautiful 10-minute video on Twitter, and the thesis of the video is that CNN might be killing thousands because of the way they’ve treated that. So, I would just ask — I’ll let Scott Adams’ video be my defense on this.”
Not a medical doctor, not a scientist, not really even an economist, but if you want proof, here is a cartoonist. And, it was the Chinese!
(Nota Bene: I am not suggesting that cartoonists are not authorities, on the contrary, they can be the only authorities on cartooning, as a discipline. But on malaria medications for a corona virus? That's just "demon sperm" talking. And speaking of medical authority, did you hear about the vaccine made with alien DNA? )
The Argumentum ad Verecundiam fallacy- Rejected Submission
The Argumentum ad Verecundiam is the fallacy of appealing to authority. Specifically, appealing to an inappropriate authority, like people who sell duck calls, or sing and dance when considering national policy.
Actually, an appeal to authority is always problematic, since the reason we are appealing is that we do not know the truth of what we are asserting, but are basing our claim on the opinion of another. Now a proper appeal to an authority would be an appeal to a real authority, someone with knowledge of the truth of our thesis. But if we don't know enough to affirm our claim on our own, we also probably do not know enough to judge whether our "authority" is veridical, or a quack. So, if you can verify an authority, you don't need one. If you need an authority, you are operating on trust, and that trust could be misplaced.
This is why the fallacy is explicit in situations where the alleged "authority" obviously has no more expertise on the question than anyone else, but has stature in some other area. When a celebrity endorses something, this is a case of the ad verecundiam. When a reality TV actor runs for office based on mere name recognition, well, good luck with that.
At one point in history, the Greek Philosopher Aristotle was given the title "The Philosopher", especially by Doctor Angelicus. It was common to end arguments by citing The Philosopher, and adding, "Ipse Dixit", "he himself said so." Appeal to authority, and while Aristotle was no Runaway1956 of philosophers, perhaps this trusted a bit too much. Even Aristotle could be wrong.
This leads to our current problem with ad verecundiam fallacies. We do not have the same knowledge as the expert, but if we recognize there is such a thing as expertise and valuable knowledge that is difficult to obtain, we need to distinguish between actual experts and frauds. This is where the lay public has to rely on the body of experts, such that if the majority of experts agree that some individual is an expert, we can rely on that vouchsafing. This is why doctors, engineers, philosophers, and even lawyers, are trained, educated, and certified by members of their own profession. Anyone who hangs their own shingle, without such recognition, is suspect, like certain alleged eye-doctors in Kentucky.
Now with science, we also rely on professional recognition, though it is a bit more amorphous. Climate change is a area where the majority is clearly on one side. But of course, that still does not mean they could not be wrong, as the history of science teaches us about majority opinions, even among scientists. Of course, that is no reason to go the other way, and deny climate change. This is this going too far with being suspect of authorities, and that is our problem today. Runaway's opinion is as good as anyone's, as an opinion. As a truth, however, it leaves much to be desired. And then there is Dr. Fauci. You see where this is going.
Speaking of Fauci, and the self-licensed Kentuckian,
One sign of a proper authority is humility. Non-cavalier.
We have a recent case, when on CNN, Peter Navarro, President Trump's anti-Sinic trade advisor, got into a fight about hydroxychloroquine. Transcript from MSN:
Gets better.
Yeah, how?
Well, there it is. Appeal to actual authorities, like experts in medical science and the consensus of a discipline, rather than the opinion of a crackpot economist dismissed by his peers. Actually, that "economist, not a scientist" has to hurt: Economists for decades have been trying to hold themselves out as the "physicists of the social sciences." But Peter does the ad verecundiam, and very well, as fallacies go.
Not a medical doctor, not a scientist, not really even an economist, but if you want proof, here is a cartoonist. And, it was the Chinese!
(Nota Bene: I am not suggesting that cartoonists are not authorities, on the contrary, they can be the only authorities on cartooning, as a discipline. But on malaria medications for a corona virus? That's just "demon sperm" talking. And speaking of medical authority, did you hear about the vaccine made with alien DNA? )
Post Comment