I’m not sure that appealing to authority or appealing to someone with more knowledge or expertise or authority in an area is really a fallacy. I mean I understand how saying “God told me to…” or “God said its wrong if…” or “The President said its ok if…” isn’t a valid reason for doing something but I don’t think that saying “Well according to Bart Ehrman…” or “according to Richard Dawkins…” is a bad tactic to take in a debate.
Well, it depends upon the nature of the debate. Citing Stephen Hawkings in a debate on the science of the cosmos is an appropriate use of citing an authority. However, citing Stephen Hawkings in a debate on, say, 80s pop stars is not.
Citing religious figures often comes down to a “they’re right because they’re right” discussion… which proves nothing.
The fallacy of appealing to authority is often a fallacy of appealing to fallacious authority.
There’s people who -know stuff- and should be listened to. Stephen Hawking and astrophysics. General Shinzeki and strategic and tactical operation needs in Iraq (he openly contradicted Rummy’s estimates).
There’s the obviously false authorities (usually ‘pop’ stars’) that have no remote connection to whatever it is that they’re talking about, and yet someone’s still paying them to yap on about it.
There’s extended false authorities, like Mr. Bush thinking he had kingly duties to authorize anything he wanted in a democracy of checks and balances (though apparently those checks and balances were on vacation…)
Then there’s stealth fakers, typified by the “Studies” made by corporate or other ‘lobbying’ groups that make use of the oddities in the methods statistics to skew numbers in their favor, and thus “Prove” a point through “Science” that is in fact neither proven nor scientific, just spun and marketed.
The tricky bit is knowing which one you’re dealing with.
Not that he deserves it, but there are two N’s in Glenn Beck.
BTW, yours has immediately become my favorite webcomic.
I’m not sure that appealing to authority or appealing to someone with more knowledge or expertise or authority in an area is really a fallacy. I mean I understand how saying “God told me to…” or “God said its wrong if…” or “The President said its ok if…” isn’t a valid reason for doing something but I don’t think that saying “Well according to Bart Ehrman…” or “according to Richard Dawkins…” is a bad tactic to take in a debate.
Well, it depends upon the nature of the debate. Citing Stephen Hawkings in a debate on the science of the cosmos is an appropriate use of citing an authority. However, citing Stephen Hawkings in a debate on, say, 80s pop stars is not.
Citing religious figures often comes down to a “they’re right because they’re right” discussion… which proves nothing.
The fallacy of appealing to authority is often a fallacy of appealing to fallacious authority.
There’s people who -know stuff- and should be listened to. Stephen Hawking and astrophysics. General Shinzeki and strategic and tactical operation needs in Iraq (he openly contradicted Rummy’s estimates).
There’s the obviously false authorities (usually ‘pop’ stars’) that have no remote connection to whatever it is that they’re talking about, and yet someone’s still paying them to yap on about it.
There’s extended false authorities, like Mr. Bush thinking he had kingly duties to authorize anything he wanted in a democracy of checks and balances (though apparently those checks and balances were on vacation…)
Then there’s stealth fakers, typified by the “Studies” made by corporate or other ‘lobbying’ groups that make use of the oddities in the methods statistics to skew numbers in their favor, and thus “Prove” a point through “Science” that is in fact neither proven nor scientific, just spun and marketed.
The tricky bit is knowing which one you’re dealing with.