Argumentum ad verecundiam

From RationalWiki

Argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority, when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source. Frequently, however, it is often a logical fallacy consisting of an appeal to authority, but on a topic outside of the authority's expertise or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (i.e., is biased). Almost any subject has an authority on every side of the argument, even where there is generally agreed to be no argument.^[1]

Contents 1 Basic examples 2 Use by creationists 3 Footnotes 4 See also

[edit] Basic examples

An example of misuse would be appealing to Albert Einstein, a noted authority on physics, to support one's political beliefs. While Einstein undoubtedly had political beliefs, he was certainly no politician or experienced in politics to the point where he could make a more informed judgement than most people. He, along with the likes of Stephen Hawking are often quote-mined as being either for or against the existence of God; and the fact that such "authorities" believed in it one way or another is cited as proof of one position being right and the other wrong. The fact that the same individuals can be selectively quoted to back up either position should give a good indication of how useful they are as genuine points in an argument.

Thus, a more accurate phrase would be "Argument or appeal to misleading authority".

[edit] Use by creationists

This fallacy is often used by creationists who appeal to authorities with PhDs^[2] in fields outside of biology or geology.^[3] This is particularly notable in various petitions that appear on sites such as Answers in Genesis that feature prominent scientists that disagree with evolution (more specifically, ones which believe there is a problem with the current theory, which certainly does not equate to outright rejecting the concept). In these lists and petitions, several reputable scientists may appear but few will actually have any expertise in biology (many are geologists,^[4]) thereby making them qualified to make an informed and expert judgment on evolution. Project Steve, a pro-evolution version of one of these petitions, on the other hand, has a much, much higher percentage of qualified biologists on its list, and it was a joke to begin with.

[edit] Footnotes

1. ↑ See here for a detailed explanation
2. ↑ This is a magical and mystical qualification in the public's eyes, but it's not that special.
3. ↑ Or anything on this list, but listing them all would make this article too tedious to read.
4. ↑ Rocks don't evolve that we're aware of... On second thought, maybe they do!

[edit] See also

• List of quotes appealing to authority

Articles about logical fallacies
Formal fallacies
Ad hominem	Argument by assertion	Negative proof	Non sequitur
Informal fallacies
Ad hoc	Argumentum ad nauseam	Argumentum ex culo	Argument from ignorance	Argument from incredulity	Balance fallacy
Begging the question	Correlation does not equal causation	Equivocation	False analogy	False dilemma	Moving the goalposts
No True Scotsman	One single proof
Red herrings
Argumentum ad baculum	Argumentum ad populum	Argument from adverse consequences	Association fallacy	Bullshit	Poisoning the well
My enemy's enemy	Spotlight fallacy	Straw man	Style over substance fallacy	Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Conditional fallacies
Argument from authority	Galileo gambit	Slippery slope
Fallacious argument styles
Chewbacca Defense	Gish Gallop	Ham Hightail	JAQing off