Talk:Argument from authority/Archive 2

?
I don't get it. Appeal to authority fallacy is a simple subject and not reserved for people studying epistemology at university, nor are these the only people who experience it being used. I can easily explain this to anyone off the street in a sentence or two without referring to any of the things mentioned in this article.

I would just say:

If you are in an argument with someone, and they say "You are wrong because X says so", then you can simply respond by saying "Why does X say so?". If the person does not know the answer to this question, one can hardly believe this person is competent regarding what X believes. If that person himself is X, and he claims to be competent, then by definition he should have an argument for why you are wrong. If he does not, then he is not competent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.188.25 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of fallacy is to not allow a person to selfishly manipulate a debate from the position of ignorance. The above 4 setence description serves this purpose. The endless mental meanderings on the article page do not. Who cares about "pancritical rationalism"? This is not a problem in real life, appeal to authority fallacy is. - T.Z.K.


 * The fallacy that follows from saying “Who are you to ask your work to be taken as seriously as the work of this or that other great man or woman” is called *ad verecundiam*, that is, to modesty. The reason it is a fallacy is that the stature of the person to whom the remark is directed is precisely the open question under debate. The Latin word "verecundiam" means modesty, therefore *ad verecundiam* should be rendered "toward modesty". It is effective if the debater under attack does not enjoy the status that the authority appealed to does and might be inclined to suspect that he doesn't deserve it. Deep down, we are all modest. This fallacy may be found with or without a particular authority specifically named. Tom Wayburn (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny, I have never heard of that fallacy before. IMO there is an issue with it though, because it requires a person to attack the authority status of a proposed authority figure just to have a chance to win an unrelated argument.  This implies that if a person is right on one subject, they are right on many.  An authority figure can simply be wrong on one specific topic.  The above description of why appeal to authority is fallacious recognizes this by tying only the strength of the authority figure's reasoning on the current subject to his likelihood of being correct, and not his track record on related subjects.  - T.Z.K.

Wonder if Wikipedia applies this to people who quote them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.69 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * People who read Wikipedia articles about logic and logical fallacies may care about pancritical rationalism. True, the rest of the article may not be of interest to many casual readers and the main points may be summed up in a few sentences, but that that is already done in the introductory paragraph.– DroEsperanto(t / c) 19:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For this topic, it might be appropriate to remove the call for additional references. Wikipedia is unique from professional journals. Journals are subject to a credentials bias. Unless one has a high academic degree and influential contacts in the liberal establishment, it's difficult to publish in professional journals despite all the appearances of anonoymous peer review. Wikipedia may someday become a well-referenced, meta-index for the professional journals. At least for the time being, it remains a pure scratch space where words are edited, deleted and added with little thought to who is writing. Personally, I'd like to see this one topic stand without requiring formal references to the establishment peer review process. Let the words speak for themselves. Andresswift (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add my weight to the position that the appeal to authority is always and in all circumstances a fallacy. I also understand that citations are difficult because this position is so implicit in Western Philosophy from Socrates to the modern scientific method that it hardly bears exposition. It seems to be a recent postmodernist trend in the spirit of post-normal science to claim otherwise. But the very term "post-normal" should be the hint that something is seriously amiss here.

Since sourcing a claim like this would fall foul of the exact fallacy under scrutiny I will simply paraphrase Socrates' argument which I think pervades the spirit of the entire subsequent Western intellectual edifice (and to be fair, every other intellectual edifice worthy of the name):

Is the argument true because the expert supports it, or does the expert support it because it is true?

If the former then we must accept the opinion of the chiropractor in the matter of subluction (or whatever it's called) and the homeopath in the matter of the effects of dilution. If the latter, then the authority itself is irrelevant ipso facto, because the grounds for believing the authority is the very grounds for accepting the claim, and therefore the authority can be omitted by syllogism with no further effect.

If a citation is required then I will point to the entire philosophical canon (apart from mystery aphorisms). Even the scholastics implicitly upheld this principle (contrary to popular belief according to ). [See, citation is a different thing from appeal to authority, the one says: "it is true because X says so", the other only says "X says so"] Nenndul (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow that's a really good point! Spectacularly put! Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of the phrase "Halo Effect" in the "Forms" section
I think introducing the idea of the "Halo Effect" would improve the "Forms" section as another way in which "Authority" can be used to argue in favor of an arguement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

99.137.251.249 (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

Rhetoric
Perhaps there should be mention of the fact that appeal to authority is an important rhetorical device.

The article might also mention the most com,mon new form: "According to Wikipedia..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "According to Wikipedia" is the opposite of A2A. 198.207.0.5 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving/title
This was moved briefly to Appeal to inappropriate authority; I've moved it back to Argument from authority. The latter appears to be a far more common term for this concept, as a quick review at, for example, Google Books will show (814 hits versus 25). If this is to be moved again, I'd appreciate if consensus were developed before doing do.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 09:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fallacy
The article states, "There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true."

On the contrary, that is the fallacy in a nutshell. It is fallacious to believe the assertion must be true when your only evidence is that a certain authority made it. Without corroboration through empirical evidence, you can only conditionally accept the assertion.

The quality of the authority may make it more likely that the assertion is true, but, without actual evidence (and a competent authority will provide access to the evidence), it is not logical to argue that it is true, only that it is likely to be true. Further, it is not possible to disprove a statement that the assertion is false (note: without evidence it is not possible to prove that the assertion is false, but that is not the same thing as stating that the assertion is false and having the statement disproved).

The statement quoted is therefore simply incorrect and should be omitted from the article. 198.207.0.5 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Why this takes a page to explain and why practically it is a fallacy to ARGUE from authority
Most people are not good at this stuff because it doesn't help them get attention from others. Some people are conditioned to develop an objective understanding of their surroundings to be better prepared. The latter group has a natural understanding of fallacies, why they are wrong, when they are used etc. For everyone else "Appeal to authority" is just a normal argument.

It is quite difficult to understand that claiming that "everyone" agrees or a person with a high social status agrees with an argument is a fallacy when to you social status is the only real truth. Expertise is also really an issue of social prowess, where a recognized expert may be quite inferior in competency to an unrecognized expert (who is perhaps even the person arguing against the expert).

For those interested in actual objective truth, there is no way to justify argument from authority in any way, shape or form. If you know that an expert agrees, you must know why he agrees. If you know why, present the argument directly, else it is assumed you are hiding ignorance and an ulterior motive. If you do not know why the expert agrees, then perhaps you are mistaken that he actually would agree in the specific situation being addressed, or perhaps the expert would be swayed by the counter arguments. Furthermore perhaps you are mistaken that the person is in fact an expert on the matter.

The expertise of the arguers and the "authority" would be determined by the outcome of the argument. At best authoritative status means the person is likely to have something influential to say on the subject. Trying to preclude someone from making an argument based on the belief that an authoritative source will disagree and win the argument is driven by the emotional need not to be deceived that the "authority" really was just that. This behavior is destructive to the spread of ideas and truth and should be recognized for the fallacy that it is no matter how it is used.

If the best you can do is to argue that someone else agrees with your belief, you shouldn't be arguing at all. -TZK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.181.121 (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation of the Latin
To explain the etymology and preferred translations, I present the following example of argumentum ad verecundiam:

The little Oxford Latin Desk Dictionary says that verēcundia (accusative verēcundiam) means "modesty; respect; ...." That is, the meaning "respect" was current in Classical Rome, the period covered by this handy dictionary. I am no expert, but I think this makes "argument according to respect" the best literal translation, and "argument to authority" or "appeal to authority" an excellent slogan-translation, which is what is wanted here. Note that ad means "to" (in a variety of senses), not "from" (in any sense). The translation "appeal to modesty" probably has no useful meaning to someone who never heard the phrase, while "appeal to authority" explains itself, and almost implies the rebuttal. Because "appeal to modesty" fails to convey the meaning of the Latin into English, it should be considered incorrect. (I also agree that the opening paragraphs suffice for the general reader who wants to know what the phrase means and when to use it.)

By design, Wikipedia is the world's largest collection of argumenta ad verecundiam ever made. We are not supposed to say anything here without citing authorities [someone please supply the links for these]. Solo Owl (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By supplying a link, do you mean WP:CITE? It may be worth elaborating on in Wikipedia policy how this relates to argument from authority. Ranze (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This article looks one-sided to me!
Governments consult prominent scientists about matters of their expertise, in order to get good advice; in principle that is wise for sure. "Appeal to authority" means to me simply that one refers to an expert opinion - IMHO, it does not necessarily imply that that opinion must be correct. However, that is what this article claims - based on what evidence?

Thus this article does not read as an encyclopedia article, but as an assay of a POV.

Compare http://info-pollution.com/appeal.htm :

"In an appeal to authority, something is claimed to be true based on the expertise of an authority rather than objective facts. [..] Such an appeal is not always a fallacy".

Harald88 (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See also: http://skepdic.com/authorty.html

Harald88 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Appeal to authority" is merely a name for the logical fallacy. I'd say that it is always a logical fallacy to claim that something is correct simply because an "expert" said it (even if they truly are an expert in the subject at hand) whilst presenting no other evidence. Their opinion does not change fact to fiction, or vice versa. Obviously, it's only a logical fallacy if they imply that what they are saying is correct simply because some authority figure said it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.76.162 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The formal logical fallacy merits a seperate section.
There is a formally recognised logical fallacy. The wikipedia article muddles the defined term "appeal to authority" with much speculation. The result is that there are many internet dwarf philosophers calling out "Appeal to Authority!" when no such fallacy has occurred. The lack of clarity of thought present elsewhere is present in this wikipedia article.

Appeal to authority is DEFINED as invocation of authority where no specific authority actually exists. That's it, nothing else. Classic example is "I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV." Now this is buried in the article about 3/4s down the page. Obvious to any capable mind given time and lack of distraction is that there are actual authorties on subjects and refering to them in arguement is not an abuse of logic. Indeed for matters of definition it is entirely necessary to refer to authority. The statements of authority on matters of definition must be taken as correct or else we will be unable to argue any assertion with confidence where there is no agreement as to what terms actually mean.

We often argue assertions of authority without recognizing it. To issue an arguement with Einstein's relativity as an assertion is no less valid than to issue an arguement with relativity as an assertion. To issue an arguement where Einstien's expertise on hairstyling is an assertion is a logical fallacy.

The only reason people read the appeal to authority article is that ther is a recognized failure in logic by this name. To not place the defined condition at the forefront reduces the quality and utility of the article. 74.203.193.5 (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Errors in opening section
The article states:
 * "Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
 * Source A says that p is true.
 * Source A is authoritative.
 * Therefore, p is true.
 * This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it)."

There are several errors in this section:
 * 1) It is false that the argument is an inductive argument, since "Therefore, p is true." is not a generalized conclusion drawn from a finite collection of specific observations.
 * 2) It is false that the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, since although what an authority claims to be true doesn't determine what is true, what is true generally does determine what an authority claims to be true. The problematic aspect is whether an alledged authority actually is an authority in the relevant domain of knowledge, and whether their opinion is unbiased and representative.
 * 3) It is false that the argument commits a fallacy of defective induction because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, since even if that were the case, the argument would actually commit a fallacy of relevance, not of hasty generalization.
 * 4) It is false that the argument commits a fallacy of defective induction because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false, since if that were the case, every inductive argument would commit the fallacy of defective induction, since every inductive argument is such that the premises can be true, and the conclusion false.

The argument is best understood either as an invalid deductive argument, because the truth of the premises doesn't entail the truth of the conclusion, or as a good abductive argument, because the best explanation for an authority, that is, an expert in the relevant domain of knowledge, making a truth claim about some matter of their expertise, is that what is claimed to be true actually is true, unless there are reasons for thinking otherwise. Consider: A mathematician claims that e^(i * pi) + 1 = 0. Isn't his claim good reason to believe that it is true that e^(i * pi) + 1 = 0, unless there are compelling reasons for believing him to be mistaken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeuronalConsensus (talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the opening section is incorrect in a numbers of ways. Addressing your points first:
 * This is identified as a fallacy of defective induction in Copi and Cohen's Intro to Logic. I think the idea is this: most things that experts say are true, thus, this thing said by an expert is true.
 * I absolutely agree with this point. This entire article is marred by not clearly distinguishing between appropriate appeals to authority (appeals to experts on issues about which they are experts) and inappropriate appeals to authority (appeals to non-experts or experts on issues about which they are not experts).
 * Hasty generalization is only one type of defective inductive fallacy. Copi and Cohen define this class of fallacies as "arguments in which the premises are relevant and yet are wholly inadequate. Remember also that some people don't understand induction as only referring to generalization from specific instances. They might also include other forms of non-deductive reasoning such as analogical as well.
 * That part of the introductory summary should be removed. We identify formal fallacies by showing that it is possible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. However, this is an informal fallacy, and so this test isn't meaningful (informally fallacious arguments can be formally either fallacious or infallacious). So this doesn't identify the relevant features of the argument from authority that can make it fallacious.
 * Finally, it is pretty clear that the argument from authority is not meant to be a deductive argument. A deductive argument is correct by virtue of its form, but there is no formal aspect to the argument from authority that would make its conclusion correct. I'll try to change the article itself sometime in the next few days if I have time, but as it stands right now it requires drastic changes in my opinion. --Original Position (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Examples Started
This article needs real-world examples to facilitate understanding and use. Added one example from my website with direct reference. More examples requested for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoos (talk • contribs) 06:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Adoos, you should know that primary research, citing your personal website, and adding personal websites to external links are all discouraged by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Please see Conflict of interest, Citing oneself, Self-promotion, and No original research for info. AveVeritas (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Complete rewrite
The previous version wasn't sourced, and was incorrect to boot. I have rewritten the article in a concise manner using three textbooks on logic for my sources. Jander80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * [Your re-write is completely worthless; the previous version had it correct when it said (IIRC) that an argument from authority is when the claims of an authority are asserted to be unquestionable based only on credentials. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)]


 * [In addition: the re-write does not contain one succint definition or description of what an "argument from authority" is. Again, the previous version had captured the essence, which is seen in my previous comment above. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)]

You are mistaken. The argument from authority is not always fallacious; it's actually a rather common pattern of inductive reasoning that we could hardly do without. For instance: (1) Most of what my doctor says about my medical condition is true. (2) My doctor says x about my medical condition. (3) Therefore, x is probably true. This is a cogent argument from authority which isn't in any sense captured by what you (incorrectly) claim to be the "essence" of this style of reasoning. Jander80 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The fallacy comes from saying "X is right because X is an authority figure." Doesn't matter who they are. The fact that they're an authority figure doesn't make them right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.20.39 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Much better example for the pattern of this fallacy:
This is a much better example of the pattern of this fallacy:
 * What A says was always accepted as correct. A says X. Therefore, X is correct.

Funny though, that the whole concept of “(reliable) sources” is based on this fallacy. As if “reliable” was globally the same for all life on earth. (Where “reliable” is based on what people call “authorities”, and “authorities” on how much those “authorities”’ output matched the own model of reality. [NOT some delusional “global truth” which for a two human brains can’t exist anyway.])

­— 88.77.132.150 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Status of the last paragraph
I'm really not sure how to put this in a way that won't seem abrasive, and so I'll just be honest, and hope that the author of the paragraph will pardon me. The content is unnecessary for understanding the argument from authority. The paragraph might have a place in a more general article on the subject of informal fallacies, but I find it to be out of place, unaesthetic, and self-indulgent in this particular article. Jander80 (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My sensitivities are not at issue, but thanks for your consideration. I have removed the para. I shall reformulate it and consider whether it has a place in the logical fallacy article. If I insert it there I shall leave a note here for your attention. Cheers. JonRichfield (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Undead not dead yet
I disagree that Undead's point was irrelevant or unworthy of attention. He said that the following could be regarded as Arg. V. : X holds that 2+2=4 is true X is not a legitimate expert on the subject of mathematics. Therefore, there must be a presumption that 2+2=4 is not true. Now, one might argue that this fallacy deserves its own term or is generally recognised as belonging in a different class of fallacy, and thereby is disqualified from being Arg. V, but to dismiss it out of hand is unhelpful and arbitrary. Unless you can demonstrate its negligibility I insist on its being included. For example, which alternative class would you nominate? I am sure that you would agree that to argue that undead's example is a non sequitur would be too general to amount to sufficient disqualification in context. JonRichfield (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless I am mistaken, wikipedia is not a platform for publishing one's original research. I have in front of me three of the most commonly used university textbooks on logic (cited in the article).  None of them include undead's (unsourced) alternative form for the argument from authority.  As for whether it ought to be included in logic textbooks as a form for the argument from authority, we could have that discussion, but this doesn't seem like the appropriate setting. At any rate, the argument seems like a genetic fallacy to me.  Jander80 (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a common tendency to label any comment unwelcome to a correspondent as amounting technically to some principle in conflict with some stated principle or other. This often amounts to artificial pleading or a similarly inappropriate quibble. Consider: suppose UD looked around and found a textbook that contained the same argument, but with 3+3=6 in the first line; would you accept the accusation that his point is unacceptable OR because he used the wrong arithmetic example? Or if he found a case stating that chocolate is manufactured by various processes, largely from material harvested form Theobroma cacao? Or any similarly trivially true statement? (or even a false one?) There comes a point beyond which, as a matter of common sense and good faith it is unreasonable and small-minded to disallow every remark as OR simply because one has not found it in a book somewhere. If the point is not in one of your books, then it might be in someone else's, or a book about to be printed, or it might be implicit in one of them in a sense that you had lacked the insight to interpret correctly. In such cases the onus of demonstrating OR would rest on you, and failing to find it in your four, or forty books in a form that you recognise would not suffice. After all, your own wording in the article so far was not from any book (I hope!!! or it would have to be deleted! It is explicit in the WP rules that in such cases you must paraphrase beyond any question of plagiarism, remember?) Now, if you had found a book that explicitly represented his argument as an example of say... Argumentum ad arithmecundiam or something in similar vein, then you would be comfortably placed to remove it to the appropriate article, even if you had to write it yourself first, and no one would complain, least of all UD,  I am sure, and certainly not myself, you may be very sure. On that principle, if you can indeed justify your impression that it is a genetic fallacy, I for one, and I bet UD for another, would support your moving it to an appropriate context, together with suitable link reference of course; after all, it is a valid an non-obvious point (remember, you were unable to find it in your books were you not? And you did take it for OR, did you not? So it could hardly be trivial, even if your argument could not be supported, right?) Until then I regret to say that I support his suggestion and would object to anyone impoverishing the article as it stands by its removal. But of course, only till then. JonRichfield (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see that you feel very strongly about this. You've drawn a line in the sand: this far, and no further.  I'm not sure how wikipedia handles such things.  Can anyone just insert unsourced musings about what they consider to be "arguably" relevant to an article?  This all seems very tedious. It does seem odd that you have demanded that I find a source which explicitly states that his form is not an argument from authority. I find this shifting of the burden of proof rather bizarre.  At any rate, my position on this issue is that the form is not an argument from authority, and that its defenders have failed to demonstrate that it is (merely asserting that it's "arguable," without a supporting source).  Moreover, the form is plainly a type of circumstantial ad hominem with a bit of genetic fallacy thrown in.  Jander80 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You can see I have strong feelings? In the reported words of a widely quoted philologist, if you can see that, you have sharper eyes than most. I hope this correspondence is not heading for an exchange of imputations of views and motives; that is a rhetorical device that I categorise with ad hominem tactics. I don't know how sand got into this; WP is no arena, or should not be. I have in fact drawn no lines, arenaceous or otherwise, and if you wish to convince me of any points, I assure you that there are no lines to cross, except possibly constraints of cogency.

As for strong feelings, the only strong feelings I have in these matters are those that I hope you share: to provide persons having recourse to WP, with material of value in reference, instruction, education, and possibly in entertainment, and to do so in a manner accessible and appropriate. The article in question is in no way special in such respects. If you do not share those feelings, then I am left with another quote, more anonymous, though not unsourced, if that makes you feel better about it: "If you aren't in this for fun or money, then what the hell are you doing here?" If you think yourself able to debate the relevance of an article with nothing but "sourced musings", or for that matter sourced mandates, good luck to you, but where I come from, the merits of what you refer to as "sources" (textbooks, as far as I can make out, but by all means correct me) are not intrinsically greater than cogency of argument, or at least display of patently good sense; in fact far otherwise – where I come from textbooks are written by intrinsically fallible humans, they are not carved stone by divine agency. Apart from asserting the authority of the source (did I hear someone mutter "verecundiam"?) you also need to persuade your correspondents and readers that you had understood that source, that it was relevant, that its author was competent, let alone authoritative, and a whole lot of stuff that I won't inflict on you lest you find it as tedious as you find establishment of the relevance of material. Note that there is no point to demanding sources for material if they do not establish the substance of the assertion. If I argue that 2+2=4, or that the winter buds of Quercus robur are clad in imbricate cataphylls, or for that matter that the planet is roughly spherical, one appropriate diagram or photograph plus captions, or one compelling argument (such as a counter-example) would be worth any number of quotes to the contrary; the whole idea is that the reasonable reader must be able to verify the value of the assertions for himself. He can do that just as well, if not better, either positively or negatively, by seeing for himself, instead of reading the alleged arguments of some authority's writings. Nor is this view original with me. Other minds, good and great, have said as much before ever I was consulted. See what sources you can find on the point.

You said i.a. "It does seem odd that you have demanded that I find a source which explicitly states that his form is not an argument from authority. I find this shifting of the burden of proof rather bizarre." Here you lose me utterly. Are you demanding that everyone accept your assertions without support when you contradict their propositions? I never asked as much for myself or for UD. And supposing I did, would you accede to the demand? I hope not! You might find the invitation to name such a source less puzzling if you evaluate it less dismissively. Remember: you are the one who values sources above arguments, so what is so unreasonable about inviting you to produce the source for our assessment? "Shifting the burden of proof" in this case amounts to no more than saying: "you have not established either your position or the accuracy of your assertions; pray do so." All you have produced so far is your own bare assertion without reason or demonstration; in effect: "It isn't, it isn't, it isn't Argumentum ad verecundiam and I don't need to demonstrate this, while you and UD do need to establish the contrary!" Even with my tolerant attitude to informal argument, I jib at that! Furthermore, the reference to finding a source is purely to play the game by your personal rules; I (and, I suspect, UD) would be quite satisfied with either widely respected sources  categorising the argument as other than Argumentum ad verecundiam, thereby creating its own locus in taxonomy as a point of distinction, or even better, showing the functional nature of the distinction, in which case no source would be necessary, not to me anyway (and, I suspect, not to UD).

Now you for example, argue ad verecundiam (or at least as flat assertion without support or exhibited sources) that "the form is plainly a type of circumstantial ad hominem with a bit of genetic fallacy thrown in". Perhaps that could be argued, and perhaps I might be persuaded (no lines in the sand, etc.) but I do not see my way to swallowing it unquestioned or without investigation or context. You will have to do better than that! You also will have to demonstrate that, if your diagnosis really is correct, it definitely excludes Argumentum ad verecundiam, which simply does not follow from your bare assertion. Even if you could demonstrate all that to everyone's satisfaction (or at least capitulation), you still would have to demonstrate that it follows inescapably from your sources, and not from your reasoning, otherwise it all would be OR. Yes? Or what am I missing? A line in the arena?

I am contemplating adding a further item to the argument to follow UD's argument something like this, please add your edits appropriately, then we won't have any strong feelings in mutual opposition:

It can be argued that it is also a case of ad verecundiam when the lack of authority of someone is used to deny the truth of what he or she claims, as in the following example:


 * X holds that it is true that because 4>2 therefore 2>4, which in case of anyone's unreasonable doubts, may be demonstrated as follows:


 * 4>2 (by inspection)


 * Therefore log(4)>log(2) (log is a monotonic function of magnitude)


 * Therefore 2 log(2)>log(2) (log is a monotonic function of magnitude, and 4=2^2)


 * Therefore 2 log (1/2)2 therefore 2>4.

How would you class that argument if you classify UD's example as non-verecundiam? And is it valid logically? And if it is not ad verecundiam, then what is it, valid or otherwise?

But note again, neither UD nor I assert that either of these examples unconditionally must be regarded as ad verecundiam, much less that they can only be regarded as ad verecundiam; (remember, all the UD claimed was " It can be argued that it is also a case of ad verecundiam when the lack of authority of someone is used to deny the truth of what he or she claims...") I do not know what sourced and reasoned demonstrations you have for supporting the contrary view, namely that such examples must not be treated as Argumentum ad verecundiam, but if you were to produce the demonstrations I (and no doubt UD) would treat them with as much as respect they deserve, but please note that just because you may validly regard the examples as something other than Argumentum ad verecundiam, to some of us it does not seem to follow that they must lack the attributes of Argumentum ad verecundiam. Entities have multiple attributes; a motor bus may indeed be a mechanical device, but that does not mean that it is invalid for a civil engineer to regard a bus as a mass on a bridge or for a passenger to see it as a means of transport. Analogously, an abstract concept, such as an argument, may have many attributes, any of which might be validly adduced in appropriate contexts. If you think that there exists an entity that has just one attribute, you strain my imagination; please exhibit an example.

More to the point, if it is possible to discuss any such point of interest in connection with Argumentum ad verecundiam, it might well be appropriate to do so in an article on Argumentum ad verecundiam. That seems to me to be what UD had done, no? JonRichfield (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I chuckled quite a few times while reading over your lengthy posting. I hope you'll forgive my brief response.  Re: the edit you are contemplating adding and the questions you posed, it seems exactly the same in form as UD's original post (albeit with the gratuitous addition of unnecessary and unhelpful mathematical jargon); i.e. quite plainly invalid, just as with any inductive argument.  As with UD's formally identical argument, yours also appears to be an ad hominem (as opposed to an argument from authority). To be perfectly honest, I'm at a loss as to why you believe it would be a helpful addition to the article (again: self-indulgence...tsk, tsk).  I have no interest in debating whether the addition is actually an argument from authority (sorry), as that seems extremely silly.  I guess I'll just have to repeat myself: how does wikipedia handle such matters?  If someone inserts an unsourced opinion into an otherwise well-sourced article, to whom does the burden of proof fall?  The person challenging the unsourced addition or the person making the unsourced addition? Jander80 (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

JD, I am happy to entertain you, but do please express proper appreciation in the form of taking the subject matter as seriously as you are able, briefly or otherwise. Firstly, if you cannot spot the difference between UD's example and the one I supplied, I think you should read your textbooks more carefully, making certain that you are up to the (errr… did you really say "mathematical jargon"??? Where most of us went to school, inequalities aren't even secondary school maths! Or was it the logs that threw you? You were joking, I hope!) and think a good deal more carefully before pronouncing on their content. Secondly, you insisted that UD's example added nothing to the discussion and seemed to think so simply because you could detect nothing that it added, though he had stated his point simply, briefly and clearly. If I am wrong in this interpretation of your own remarks, please explain, and supply the sources on which you base them. So far we have nothing but your own unsupported, unsourced insistence to support your views, without substance or reason. If UD's (and my subsequent, unpublished) examples strike you as either invalid or materially identical to the material you had printed, then this is after all a formal point; you should be able to establish it more cogently than by a refrain on unsourced material in a totally inappropriate context. Instead all we get is: "Moreover, the form is plainly a type of circumstantial ad hominem with a bit of genetic fallacy thrown in." If it is so plain, why not explain it to those of less discriminating intellect, never forgetting to source your arguments, of course? I already have undertaken to support you in doing so if you can do it, and expressed my (admittedly unsourced) opinion that UD would do as much. But all you have done so far is to insist repetitively on your own authority that yours is the only authority that carries any weight in this matter. If as you claim, UD and my examples are ad hominem and not authority, then what authoritarian argument is NOT ad hominem? In fact of course, your point is invalid, as you could easily see by consulting your textbooks, because firstly, it is stretching a point to insist that to point out a difference in level of authority between two opponents is an ad hominem argument (really!) and secondly, to the extent that the point has merit, it is irrelevant. Ad hominem aspects to an argument, justifiable or not, do not imply that the argument is not authoritarian. Or is that a new concept that you feel needs sourcing?

You also say (well, if no one has been playing tricks on us and doctoring the text): "I have no interest in debating whether the addition is actually an argument from authority (sorry), as that seems extremely silly." Would you care to explain what is so silly about discussing arguments from authority in an article on arguments from authority? Nor am I much tempted to much debate on anything in this matter; you will observe that I have been putting forth matters of fact and logic and inviting you either to nullify them or put them into proper context. No rhetoric required. Not even any sources. JD, For the severalth time, in WP sourcing is very important, but it is not a mantra. Sources only matter where there are matters that the reader might reasonably wish to verify other than by accepting the word of the author; what did you think they were for? . This isn't a kindergarten. If I say that 98765431 is the largest prime in decimal notation that has eight distinct digits, then you might possibly ask me for a source or similar support. Conversely, if I say that 7 is the largest single-digit prime in decimal notation, then no source is necessary; the reader can count it on his fingers if he is interested enough. UD's example, I should have thought would fit into the second class. If you disagree, please explain what point you find in it that is so abstruse that it needs explanatory sourcing. In both UD's example and in my (different) example, the authoritarianism is explicit; what is it that you need sourced? JonRichfield (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be getting worked up, and this is leading you to make disingenuous remarks. Please understand that I have no interest in using this discussion board as a forum for debates on logic (it just feels unseemly and undignified), nor do I think discussion board debates are the proper way to resolve disputes over unreferenced content.  I've added a dubious tag to the claim.  According to wiki policy: "Any editor can remove unreferenced material" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners.  If the claim isn't backed up by a legitimate source by a few weeks, I'm just going to remove it again.  If this is in violation of a wiki policy of which I'm unaware, or in violation of "wiki spirit" in some sense, please link me to a relevant article which explains the proper procedure on such matters. Jander80 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It also appears that wiki policy supports my position that your attempt to shift the burden of proof on to me is illegitimate in this case: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CHALLENGED#Anything_challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged  Jander80 (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice try JD, better luck next time. It appears, does it? If you want to challenge the content, go ahead, but you might find it prudent to read up on a few policies first. Try WP:COMMON for a start. You also might profit from Consensus and Ownership of articles. You see, JD, although you dismissed my urging you to take the objectives of WP seriously, it really is important to others, and not only to me. It is not proper to reject every reasonable remark incorporated into any of your contributions, nor to demand that others adhere to your personal standards of intellectual aesthetics; you will have noticed in turn that there was not a lot of moaning at the bar when you arbitrarily replaced the original version of this article, and I beg you to exercise a similar sense of balance without complaints of tedium, accusations of bad faith, abuse, and the like, which I have been treating gently, but some others might take exception to. I have now repeatedly suggested that if you do not feel that UD's material belongs here, you explain why, rather than try to disqualify it by bare assertion. That is unlikely to wear well if you take the matter to arbitration. But of course, you must suit yourself. JonRichfield (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please understand that I have no interest in using this discussion board as a forum for debates on logic, nor do I think discussion board debates are the proper way to resolve disputes over unreferenced content. We're going to have to resolve this some other way.  The Consensus article mentioned a resolution called "Third Opinions": "3O is reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute. The editors in question agree to allow a third (uninvolved) volunteer to review the discussion and make a decision, and agree to abide by that decision."  Would this be agreeable to you?  Jander80 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Let it stand till some convenient time on Monday. UD has not said anything that I noticed lately, and he might have something to say. I have left a note in his talk page. If he says nothing over the weekend, I guess we might as well carry on. JonRichfield (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A few more comments, for the record. You accuse me of "arbitrarily" replacing the previous article; in fact, I replaced an almost completely unsourced article that was mostly wrong (and without a single credible reference) with a well-sourced and fully referenced version.  I've already justified this move with Wikipedia policy; i.e. "Any editor can remove unreferenced material".  Wikipedia appears to encourage editors to replace unsourced and poorly referenced articles with improved versions.  It's true that "there was not a lot of moaning at the bar" when I rewrote the article, but of course, there would have been no good grounds for such moaning.  Far from an arbitrary rewrite, I believe that my edits objectively improved the article in a manner encouraged by Wikipedia policy.


 * Second, I am somewhat taken aback by your off-hand dismissal of what seems to be quite clearly a rebuttal of your entire position, viz.: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." This would appear to support my position that I am justified in requesting that you provide a source for the addition, and in removing it should you fail to do so.


 * With that said, I see no harm in waiting until Monday as you prefer. Jander80 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I came here from AN/I and briefly looked through this talk page and the article. When it comes to sourced vs. unsourced, sourced will win 100% of the time. Even if the unsourced version is WP:TRUE, the sourced stuff stays until the unsourced stuff gets published. That's one of our pillars of existence here at WP, see WP:V and refer to Jander80's comment regarding removing unreferenced material. Also,, Jander80, in case you are not aware, there is a specific policy regarding using Wikipedia as a forum, see WP:NOTAFORUM. I mention this because you wrote above that you didn't want to use it as one, and figured you might not know that that's very much in line with policy. N o f o rmation Talk  03:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a point of confusion here. No one said anything about replacing anything that JD or anyone else wrote. This is not a dispute about sourced/unsourced. As you can see from the content so far, UD added a clarificatory example to what was already present; s/he did not dispute anything. JD's position was that it did not add anything to the discussion, and that it was not ad verecundiam, but something else. This he failed to support and he furthermore refused to discuss the merits of the case. He certainly had neither sourced references or commonsense arguments to support his attitude that amount to possessiveness. If he had indeed produced anything sourced to address the matter the problem would have vanished, but he refused repeatedly. The material in the example, as I have pointed out already to JD, is neither OR nor gratuitous addition of material, but commonsense. It is simple, brief, and helpful, logical clarification, much as an arithmetical example could clarify a mathematical discussion. That is not OR but common sense. JonRichfield (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for part of what I said: I had not realised that someone had changed (and someone else reinstated) much of the article; and if I had known of it, I would not have approved. That had nothing to do with me or the argument about UD's example. I repeat this remark in the other section in case anyone misses it here. JonRichfield (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Jon, I take issue with your charge of "possessiveness" on my part. I'm sorry, but I really feel that I've been perfectly reasonable and that my requests have been rather modest.  I requested a source for a claim that seems to me to be dubious.  Your response was to insinuate that I'm incompetent in the subject matter, and that the (unsourced) material in question is as obvious as basic maths, rendering a citation unnecessary.  My position was that unsourced material isn't justified on the grounds of two editors on a discussion page coming to an agreement through debate, but through verifiable sources.  Much like the IP engaging in tendentious editing yesterday, you seem to believe that you are not required to support your beliefs with sources if you consider those beliefs to be "obvious".  Now, I've given you my opinion (for what it's worth, as I said), that your example is in fact not an argument from authority.  It would seem that this should be enough to persuade you that it's not really all that "obvious," but again, you have accused me of incompetence, and I don't want to beg any questions.  Whatever the case, I was under the impression that disputes over articles are to be settled by verifiable sources, and not by the alleged expertise of the people editing the article.


 * Furthermore, you have again illegitimately attempted to shift the burden of proof on to me (the person challenging the unsourced material), when wiki policy seems quite clearly to support my position: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." Now that a third party has weighed in, it's my hope that we can now agree that the material you're defending will need a reliable source if it is to stay in the article. Jander80 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Jan, I think that on current showing, particularly as you express yourself unwilling to discuss the material and its basis, we had better avoid directly addressing each other until this business gets settled one way or another, otherwise it seems likely to degrade into a war of imputations, which I for one regard as not a lot preferable to all the other kinds of war that WP is heir to. I trust we can agree to let the mediating parties decide or promote the best course in the light of our responses to them rather than each other. To the extent that you have read unjustified accusations into what I had recently said, I apologise again for misunderstanding the situation concerning illegitimate changes to the article and remarks that I had thought referred (incomprehensibly of course) to the paragraph that I had been defending. Once all that is all settled, perhaps we can resolve to continue in amity. JonRichfield (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jon, looking at your argument above, as far as I can tell, you're making the same mistake the IP is making below. Unless you can provide verification of the thing you want to add in reliable sources, the information can and should be removed if it is challenged.  You say above, " There comes a point beyond which, as a matter of common sense and good faith it is unreasonable and small-minded to disallow every remark as OR simply because one has not found it in a book somewhere."  Actually, that's exactly how Wikipedia works.  You're right that we don't need the exact text to be in a source, but the underlying idea must be in some source somewhere. If it's a work that's currently being submitted to a publisher but not yet published, then wait until it is published, then add it.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be "ahead of the curve"--we're merely here to collect together what others have already said about subjects, not to be a place to make cutting edge arguments.  And Jander80 is right that the burden lies on you to verify the information; WP:BURDEN (which is a part of WP:V, which is one of our core policies) says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."  Now, I haven't read all of the details above, because scanning them it looks like there's a lot of back and forth that isn't so relevant, but Jander80 is actually completely correct to say that there is no reason to debate whether or not something is an argument from authority, because that's not what Wikipedia talk pages are for.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Qw, please look at the statement at issue. It doesn't even resemble the ID case. Note also what the issues in this case are. Consider also what the realities are in any non-trivial article. I challenge you, Jan or anyone else to choose ten (20, 100... whatever) well-written articles chosen at random throughout WP (OK, if it really IS at random, let us save our sanity by omitting rock groups and sports stars etc) and see how many of them perfectly reasonably and instructively contain remarks that fit into the context but are not explicit in the sources. In an article with a page or two of text, my bet is 99%+; what is yours? This is not even a case of WP:COMMON, but simple composition! Here is the text in question; first the immediately preceding chunk by Jan to give the context, then the contribution by UD; the bit at issue.

We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

X holds that A is true X is a legitimate expert on the subject. The consensus of experts agrees with X.   Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.


 * Immediately after which UD inserted:

It can be argued that it is also a case of ad verecundiam when the lack of authority of someone is used to deny the truth of what he or she claims, as in the following example:

X holds that 2+2=4 is true X is not a legitimate expert on the subject of mathematics. Therefore, there must be a presumption that 2+2=4 is not true.
 * Notice that the example does not replace any referenced text, and that it is not a statement of empirical fact requiring sourcing, but simple logic in context, much like what in a maths article might appear in the form of an illustrative arithmetical example. You say: "That is exactly how WP works", but I deny it; If I say "Paris is in France", no one asks me to source it, though it probably is in thousands of books; if I say that 13+7=17+3 I don't have to source it, and a good job too -- most books don't mention the fact, even books on number theory. If I mention that it is an example of the Goldbach conjecture applying in two ways to the same even number, I would have to source the Goldbach conjecture part for the halt of number theory, but even for their benefit, I would not have to source the arithmetic. In UD's example the very wording implies the same form of presentation and presumption as Jan's, and yet Jan, who wrote: "We may also simply incorporate these conditions..." objected to: "It can be argued that it is also a case..." What would he have said if "It can be argued that" were omitted? Without being able to impugn the validity or sense of the example, he then fell back on arguing that it was not ad verecundiam, but he was unable to support his claims at all -- not merely against any argument of mine, but even in words of his own (or sourced, for that matter!) So he complained that it was not sourced, much as he might have complained about the Goldbach arithmetic not being sourced. Please note: I am not arguing against his right to disagree and establish his point: I actually invited him to say what it was about the example that disqualified it from classification as ad verecundiam, and offered to support moving it elsewhere more appropriate. That was where he started back-pedalling and refusing to argue and saying how unfair it all was. In terms of the Goldbach analogy, one might say that he began by arguing the arithmetic and ended by crying "unsourced!" when he could find no error.
 * Now, before I go into essays on the matter and waste your time as well as everyone else's and my own, I'd like to hear who else thinks that this is taking the principles of NOR, or sourcing to ridiculous lengths and distorting their intent as a substitute for common sense. For my part it has precious little to do with the case in point, which is a triviality; what disturbs me is that the principle is no triviality: I say it does nothing whatever for WP principles or even WP's good reputation or operation to invoke them in a case of this type. JonRichfield (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, before I go into essays on the matter and waste your time as well as everyone else's and my own, I'd like to hear who else thinks that this is taking the principles of NOR, or sourcing to ridiculous lengths and distorting their intent as a substitute for common sense. For my part it has precious little to do with the case in point, which is a triviality; what disturbs me is that the principle is no triviality: I say it does nothing whatever for WP principles or even WP's good reputation or operation to invoke them in a case of this type. JonRichfield (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I ought to defend myself against Mr. Richfield's latest stream of insults and accusations directed against me. Richfield alleges that I "started back-pedalling" and "crying 'unsourced'" only because I was unable to refute his arguments. First, this bizarre claim is just demonstrably false: in fact, my objection from the very first sentence in my very first post on this matter regarded the unsourced nature of the addition. Moreover, while I offered my opinion on some of the subjects raised by Mr. Richfield (as per his explicit requests), I made sure to state quite clearly in every single post that I had no interest in debating the matter on a wiki talk page. At no point did I ever make an effort to engage in a debate with Richfield (in fact, I explicitly and repeatedly informed him that I would not argue the point with him); I only responded to his direct request for my opinions. My responses in this thread are relatively brief. I would appreciate the time anyone might be willing to spend skimming over them, and so verify that --- contrary to Mr. Richfield's accusations --- I repeated the same objection in every comment: viz. that the addition lacks a reliable source.

Second, Mr. Richfield's accusation is completely irrelevant. Even if true, this would only call into question my motivations for "crying 'unsourced'," and would in no way affect the accuracy of the objection. Mr. Richfield is merely adding to the long list of insults and dubious accusations against me in which he has indulged since early on in this discussion. I believe a review of my responses to Mr. Richfield will reveal that I have been acceptably civil and reasonable, even in the face of Mr. Richfield's on-going insults and attacks on my character and motives.

Richfield argues that there is no difference between my wording: "we may also simply incorporate these conditions..." and UD's "it can be argued that it is also the case...". But of course, there is a major relevant difference: the content in my remark is directly supported by the cited sources, while UD's is not. Now, Mr. Richfield seems to believe that the content from the source indirectly supports the addition. On this, I guess I'll just repeat (yet again) what I've been saying since my first post: this might be an interesting discussion to have (though not here), but the fact remains that the source does not directly support Richfield's position, and so the material lacks a reliable source.

I would also appreciate it if Mr.Richfield would refrain from further personal attacks, as they are completely irrelevant, and are really growing quite tiresome. Jander80 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * [Update] In reading over Professor Salmon's Introduction to Logic and Critical Reasoning, I have found a passage which appears quite clearly to support my position that UD's example is an ad hominem (as opposed to an argument from authority). Professor Salmon analyzes a dispute between two scientists, using it to give practical examples of informal fallacies.  Consider the following example:
 * "Dr. Alvarez responds by saying that he considers Dr. Clemens inept at interpreting sedimentary rock strata and that his criticisms can be dismissed on grounds of general incompetence, a charge Dr. Clemens rejects."
 * Professor Salmon classifies this example as an "abusive ad hominem," (p. 125) and it appears to be of the same form as UD's example: i.e. (1) X says Y. (2) X is incompetent. (3) Therefore, ~Y.
 * I believe that this really ought to put the matter to rest, unless someone can find a source supporting Mr. Richfield's position (in which case it might be helpful to include both views, while noting the dispute). Jander80 (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should be grateful that JD has consented to discuss the merits of the point after all, but really... He said: 'Professor Salmon classifies this example as an "abusive ad hominem," '. No doubt Professor Salmon is a respectable authority and the example suits his requirements in context, but it does not follow that it is applicable here. Firstly, he proposed a classification according to a single facet, not a definitive elimination of alternative aspects such as authority. The fact that Salmon's sample might in his opinion be ad hominem does not affect the question of whether it is ad verecundiam as well. Speaking as an authority he even might be wrong.  Secondly, as stated, the example has nothing directly to do with Clemens' authority; even authorities have been known to be incompetent. As we lack further evidence in the case, the charge of "general incompetence" might or might not be valid, but it would be a fairly tenuous example of an  ad hominem attack anyway; if Alvarez had accused Clemens of being a wife-beater or child molester, that would have been ad hominem I think, because I suspect that in other respects such people might be reasonably competent. It is not as though the field of competence in question were ethics or human relationships or the like, where family abuse might be relevant -- it seems to be geology. If it were given that Clemens is indeed inept at interpreting sedimentary rock strata, then that fact would be in every way relevant and would have some merit, but then it is very arguable how ad hominem the attack would be, ineptitude in geology being a valid point to raise in ad verecundiam arguments in geological matters (inductively if not formally logically, of course.)
 * Note however, that Alvarez's wording was: "can be dismissed on grounds of general incompetence", which is definitely not the same as -Y (using JD's notation for Y being false, as opposed to either true or undecided). All it suggests is that Clemens' opinion is irrelevant to the case and accordingly has no force. In contrast UD's example stated: "a presumption that 2+2=4 is not true", or in effect, -Y: not at all the same thing. Furthermore, UD's statement supplied as a premise, a given: "X is not a legitimate expert on the subject of mathematics"; that is as it stands to be accepted as a matter of fact; it is in any case not in itself a denigratory or ad hominem statement: many people of the highest standing are not "legitimate experts" on all sorts of subjects. Until it were made plain that X were indeed such a legitimate expert and that the claim were maliciously and unfairly intended as an illegitimate argument against 2+2=4 by attacking the character and personal merits of X, the question of ad hominem does not even arise. Ad verecundiam does indeed arise in UD's case and arguably in Salmon's case as well, because it is perfectly possible for the same argument to have attributes of both possibly fallacious forms.
 * So much for the logical analysis thus far. However, an interesting point that should be borne in mind in this entire matter is that as soon as anyone deigns to examine the question seriously, it comes down to conscientious common sense analysis. In this context sourcing does not come into it, any more than into arithmetic. This is not because sourcing is irrelevant to WP, but because it is not relevant to the question in that part of the article. Consider the recourse to Professor Salmon's book; faik it might be a fine book, and given more information we might find that none of us has any option for criticizing his diagnosis of "abusive ad hominem", but what we find instead is that Salmon's example is not UD's example, not in substance, nor in intention, nor in statement. Sourcing is one thing; relevance is another; any one of us who has had occasion to inspect dodgy citations will be familiar with irrelevant or erroneous attributions, and the more citations we find in an article, the more suspicious we need to be. In this matter, JD had perfectly adequately, and faik fairly and cogently cited at least 3 (5?) textbooks in structuring the article and replacing an old and untidy article with a new and neat one. (This is not my being nice to JD; it is striking that apart from the recent confusion there has been little if any objection among the authors of the displaced material.) But having established the relevant basics, there is no need, no ground even, for more citations until someone comes up with relevant material that does not follow directly from material already present. UD presented us with the same form of argument that had already been used, the same concepts that had already been defined (and sourced!) and applied them in a relevant remark that had not yet emerged in the text. He could have sourced every word individually and it would not have added a bit of merit or sense to the article; all the merit was in what he said plus what had gone before. Citation overkill is no virtue. JonRichfield (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice: Mr Richfield's case for the claim that the material doesn't need a reliable source hinges on his claim that, if we accept Professor Gensler's sourced version of the argument from authority, then we can no more reasonably challenge UD's addition than we could "13+7" if we already accept the inclusion of "7+13". In short, Richfield is claiming that UD's material cannot be reasonably challenged, because it is identical to the sourced form. If this claim can be reasonably challenged, then Mr.Richfield has no case for not providing a reliable source. Here I present a case which I personally believe utterly wrecks Richfield's entire position, not that it matters for this case whether I am correct. What matters is that it demonstrates that --- at minimum --- it's possible to reasonably challenge Mr. Richfield's position. As such, Mr. Richfield cannot escape the necessity of finding a reliable source to support his position, unless he is prepared to charge me with complete incoherence and unreasonableness (which would obviously be far stronger a claim than merely denying that my arguments against his belief succeed). Jander80 (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologise for not noticing that JD had posted here; I had only found his friendly and punctilious arguments on my talk site, where they presumably still are. In turn I answered in the same spirit, as I am sure JD will confirm, and if he does not, why, the full text, unadorned, still is there for all to see. Regrettably however, my courtesy could not extend to agreement with JD's more vulnerable assertions or inferences, such as that I had said or implied that what UD had said was identical to what Gensler had said. That would make about as much sense as saying that saying "7+13=20" is the same as saying "17+3=20" because 20=20; the two might give the same result, and one might be derivable from the other, but that does not mean that it is the same utterance, nor the same proposition. However, that was the least of the material I received, and I am sure that JD will confirm that I replied at satisfactory length and with adequate cogency. If I am wrong in my optimism, then I can only recommend once again that any interested arbiters accept JD's invitation at face value, and get the basis for their opinions directly from the source at my talk page, and not second-hand on this page. JonRichfield (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that you made some fine points and thoughtful rejoinders. Indeed, I'm tempted to resort to that old back-handed compliment: "I've seldom seen a bad case made so well". Still, I think the very fact that we are having a reasonable dispute on the matter goes to support my entire point: since a reasonable dispute over the accuracy of the content is possible, the challenged content needs a reliable source. Jander80 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, at this point I think the case is or ought to be settled. I've even produced sources from textbooks which explicitly support my position that the argument should be thought of as an ad hominem.  At this point, it appears his reply is to suggest that this textbook might actually represent a "lone voice in the wilderness".  At any rate, it seems fairly clear that his case for keeping this unsourced material in the article has fallen apart.  I'm going to remove it tomorrow unless someone objects.  Jander80 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that the notification function failed so much on my page, I did not found out about this byzantine discussion until now and I have to find the most obtuse argument of all, that something is not ad verecundiam because it is ad hominem, that is the same as claiming that someone is not a Roman because he is European. ALL AD VERECUNDIAM IS A SORT OF AD HOMINEM! And the argument is not that your textbook is "a lone voice in the desert" as the biblical saying goes, desert, not wilderness. The argument is that to claim incompetence is not the same as to claim lack of authority. This is just like claiming that an argument claiming that someone is competent would not be an argument from authority to prove that claiming that someone is an authority is not an argument from authority. You see how illogical it is? I had a longer answer, but I'm storing it for a publication which will make the claims sourced and make you humiliated, what an end for trying to defend the use of sources? Is it not? But ou were the one that became stubborn from an irrational position for sake of the authority of sources on the subject of the fallacy of authorities.Undead Herle King (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the claim that that "all ad verecundiam is a sort of ad hominem" is patently false. There is some overlap but one is not a subset of the other. If I argue "X is true because Mr. Y, president of Z says so" I'm not attacking the opponent. Although a similar argument could be constructed as to fall in the overlap of ad vercundian and ad hominem, "Mr. Y, says X. He is the president of Z, who are you to contradict him?". Btw, you could drop adjectives like obtuse as they don't add anything to the debate PuercoPop (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

lol --- Jander80 (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to/Argument from Authority is ALWAYS A FALLACY
There seems to be people editing this page with a strong bias towards naive egalitarianism. (People are equal, thus only effort matters, thus expert status must be respected even in the absence of functional knowledge) Citation isn't an issue because I am sure there are plenty of sources for both sides (even though one side is blatantly wrong)

Keep in mind that the key word is ARGUMENT/APPEAL. If you are trying to make an ARGUMENT by saying that an authority agrees/disagrees, it is always a fallacy. If you know that the authority disagrees, or you ARE the authority, then you should also know the reasoning behind the disagreement. Thus it is a red herring to refer to credentials. If you do not know this, A) it isn't clear that the person is an authority on the exact topic of discussion, and B) it isn't clear that the authority actually disagrees.

It is fine for a person to trust an authoritative source and not spend the effort to validate that information. That does not however put the person in a position to ARGUE about it, and that would not constitute an ARGUMENT from authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.49.192 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If the argument from authority purports to be deductive or infallible, then --- failing the use of an omniscient authority (e.g. God) --- we may consider it fallacious for practical purposes. The argument from authority is actually an inductive argument based upon probability, and it's a type of reasoning we use (reliably) on a daily basis.  As Professor Salmon states in her Introduction to Logic and Critical Reasoning:


 * We all rely on the advice and counsel of others. Sometimes when we present arguments, we appeal to what experts have said on the matter instead of presenting direct evidence to support the claims that we make.  Critical thinking allows for this, for it would be difficult and wasteful to always repeat arguments already made by experts.  Thus, many arguments that appeal to some legitimate authority can be construed as strong inductive arguments. (p.118)
 * Philosophers and logicians often use terms like "appeal to inappropriate authority" to distinguish fallacious versions of this type of argument from the sort of arguments we use (cogently) on a daily basis. Jander80 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jander has brought this content dispute to WP:ANI. I'm not sure how much relief he'll get there, but I (not an admin) made a few comments responding to his post. Given that the version supported by Jander is sourced and the version supported by 24.98.49.192 is not, and also given that the version supported by Jander has been in place in some form for quite some time (well before either Jander or the IP edited the article), I think the best course is to keep Jander's version in place until the dispute can be resolved by consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh the irony. You use an appeal to authority to support your argument, but since you know this is not convincing to someone that already disagrees, you attempt to present the argument of said person directly - Thus contradicting your own reasoning and supporting mine by your actions.  If what you said was true, then you would not feel the need to present that reasoning at all.  But through the ages we have come to see that such an attitude is obviously wrong, so you take the typical approach of presenting a hollow argument from a proposed authority while still depending on the weight of that person's position to carry the argument.  So we have now a bastardized version of the real "appeal to authority fallacy".  The most obviously wrong aspect of that position is that it is not clear who is the authority until the debate is resolved.  You are talking about the issue of "local" authorities, who have been persuasive so far on a particular topic that did not include the new agent.


 * What you forget is that fallacy is the domain of those few and far between who have such conditioning as to be immune to the bandwagon effect, and who look for any way possible to get through to people that their reasoning is irrational. The instant they succeed, they are joined by people who lack that same conditioning and eventually forget the original meaning.  The people you reference are no philosophers or logicians, for there can be no name for what that is supposed to represent that will persist through the ages unless it references the aforementioned conditioning.  But specifically regarding what this so called "logician" claims, he wishes that people can influence a debate without putting forth any argument at all.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.49.192 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is arguing or appealing to authority, not internal reliance on someone's council. It's nice to see the edit nazi's of this page developing an greater understanding of this topic.  However you are still missing one important point - The degree to which someone insists on relying on authority is directly proportional to that person's bias, lack of knowledge of who is an expert on the subject, lack of knowledge of which "expert" agrees with what, lack of willingness to consider opposing arguments, and everything else that drives one towards distorting the truth.  That is why "argument" or "Appeal" is the key term.  It's not a fallacy if there is no appeal or argument.  If I don't agree with your claim that X is an expert, and you insist on relying on your interpretation of his opinion, then it IS a fallacy.  There is a reason you can't resolve the dispute by simply explaining the "authoritative" opinion - Namely that you have no clue what you are talking about, or don't want to!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.49.192 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that you have some sort of axe to grind with the relatively uncontroversial position that arguments from authority can be cogent statistical syllogisms. That's fine, but this isn't a debate forum.  If you have any reliable sources to support your position, then I would be legitimately interested in reading them, and in working such concerns into the article.  I'm just not sure how these grandiloquent rants you keep posting are supposed to help the article. Jander80 (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, 24.98.49.192. The present "redefinition" of Argument from authority was brought to my attention by a university writing center which is has been having an increasing number of students object to instructors flag their arguments with "argument from authority". This page (and several others) have been brought to my attention as representative of the new definition. I love your comment, and would further love if you contacted me personally. This argument is pernicious in its seduction. The only silver lining of this unfortunate enterprise has been your observation in this comment. My amusement at the irony is the only thing saving me from a well of despair at the human condition.Micah.t.ross (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC) MRoss


 * I actually am an admin, and I both agree and disagree with Bbb23's points. That is, it's true that discussing this is a good plan, but I don't think that at the moment dispute resolution is necessary.  The simple fact is, we are never supposed to, on Wikipedia, replace well-sourced (i.e., verified) information with our own personal thoughts--that's called original research, and is strictly forbidden.  This isn't a content dispute, it's the IP trying to violate 2 of Wikipedia's core principles.  Until such time as IP can present reliable sources that support xyr perspective, the sourced information should not be replaced.  Even if IP does provide said reliable sources, we still shouldn't replace the old info--rather, we should augment it and provide multiple points of views.  Philosophers, even philosophers of logic, regularly disagree about things.  Our job is not to decide which one is "right", but to present a neutral representation of all major views.  The only reason to completely replace the current position would be if IP or others could substantively show that the current version is so unpopular/unsupported/fringe that it doesn't deserve any weight.  Furthermore, I want to clarify that repeatedly replacing sourced information with unsourced OR is grounds for a block.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I point out in the previous section, there appears to be some major confusion here. How did the question of replacing sourced (or FTM unsourced) matter arise? That is not a point at issue. UD added a relevant clarificatory example to material without replacing anything. There is no question of resisting or bending WP policies. JD refused to discuss the merits of the case, simply saying that it wasn't sourced, wasn't verecundiam, and that he wasn't interested in debating its merits. The suggestion that it was contrary to policy was his in spite of my repeatedly pointing out that it is not, either in terms of OR or commonsense. His behaviour is both possessive and provocative (read the discussion if you don't believe me) and is in any case grossly unconstructive: he wants to remove useful material without discussion and UD wanted to add useful material that no more needed justification in the face of WP policies than pointing out that 91 is not a prime. JonRichfield (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're talking about a diffeent issue? If you look at this edit by the IP address who opened this thread, it removed over half of the article, including a number of citations, and replaced it with the IP's personal opinion.  That's what the concern is.  I see the word "undead" above, but I'm unclear...is that a person/editor's name?  I don't see it used before the section "Undead not dead yet".  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry!  Some days all sorts of things go wrong. I saw the remarks about Jander in this section and had been away from the site and missed the changes, so I assumed it was the same dispute. UD is my abbreviation in context for Undead Herle King and JD for Jander80. Feel welcome to call me JR or BF or the like. JonRichfield (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for part of what I said: I had not realised that someone had changed (and someone else reinstated) much of the article; and if I had known of it, I would not have approved. That had nothing to do with me or the argument about UD's example. I repeat this remark in the other section in case anyone misses it here. JonRichfield (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone who weighed in on this matter. But while you're here, JonRichfield and I have a similar dispute in the "Undead not dead yet" thread which could also use some input.  Given that the dispute between JonRichfield and I mostly concerns wiki policy, more advice from veteran editors would be quite helpful.  As JonRichfield is now accusing me of a barrage of offenses (e.g. possessiveness, "provocative" and "grossly unconstructive" behavior) --- charges I find to be extremely unfair --- it seems unlikely that progress can be made without the input of neutral parties. Jander80 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The various propaganda arguments regarding concepts like "original research" are just thinly veiled attempts to defend a biased viewpoint. Any writing on Wikipedia that is not directly quoted is not formally discernible from this so called "Original Research", thus outlining the flaws of Wikipedia regarding any area that is disputed.  Logical reasoning must be used to paraphrase any source, and only the contributor's proficiency versus the average proficiency determines what you people claim is "Original Research".  I am sorry if you are too stupid to follow the basic concepts of reason to go from any cited source on logic and fallacy to an understanding of "Appeal to Authority Fallacy".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.49.192 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you have sources to present then we have nothing to talk about. WP:V is a non-negotiable policy. N o f o rmation  Talk  19:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A non negotiable policy that has no precise definition definition cannot possibly be followed. Instead what you refer to is a means of biasing any topic by arbitrarily deciding when it is "Original Research", and when it is merely paraphrasing.  One can only surmise that you lack the knowledge and reasoning ability to formulate a non-negotiable policy.
 * The definitions are in fact quite precise. In the first sentence it links to a page that deals with identifying reliable sources, see SOURCES, and if you can find a source that meets the criteria and says exactly what you're trying to say, then we can include that perspective in the article.  Alternatively, you are free to publish a textbook, promote it so that it becomes popular and we can use the WP:SECONDARY sources that publish it.  Until then, you're wasting your time by acting as though your opinion is going to override what the sources say.  N o f o rmation  Talk  01:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.49.192 (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One nice thing about Wikipedia's policies is that that may all be changed by community consensus; you are welcome to try to change WP:OR. Until such time as it changes, though, you must follow it, or you cannot edit here.  WP has rules, and allows admins to block those who break some of those rules if necessary to prevent disruption.  Such is clearly the case here. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

John Locke
Someone might want to add the history of "argument from authority" or "argumentum ad verecundiam": it was first used in the chapter "Of Reason" in John Locke's 1690 An Essay Concerning Human Reason, along with "ad hominem," "ad ignorantiam," and "ad iudicium." Locke seems to have invented the phrase, although its close relative "argumentum ad hominem" may derive from Aristotle's "Sophistici elenchi" 177b34: πρὸς τὸν ἐρωτῶντα, οὐ πρὸς τὸν λόγον ("ad [hominem] rogantem, non ad rationem"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.51.124 (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

two points
1) this is horrendous:

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct. a says p about S.   Therefore, p is correct.

a grade school logic text would collapse this instantly. most is logically equivalent to some. would you accept the following as valid?


 * most (or some) apples are red
 * x is an apple
 * therefore, x is red.

huh? at least change 'most' to 'all'. at least then your fallacy is a little more difficult to collapse, and i won't bother, i'll just jump to two.

2) those arguing that an appeal to authority is always fallacious are correct. i'm going to demonstrate using a few simple examples.

suppose it's the year 1200. excusing the slight anachronism utilized to demonstrate the point, the following would be a perfectly correct argument:


 * aristotle claims that newton's third law is incorrect.
 * aristotle is an authority on natural philosophy.
 * there is a consensus amongst natural philosophers.
 * therefore, newton's third law is incorrect.

how about this for today?


 * your local religious leaders claim that evolution is evil.
 * they are authorities on what is evil.
 * there is a consensus amongst them.
 * therefore, evolution is evil.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.21.238 (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The first example you cite is taken from Harry J. Gensler's textbook: Introduction to Logic. Inductive arguments (such as the most common forms of argument from authority) are never deductively valid.  They can be "cogent" or "strong" if the premises provide good (but not conclusive) support for the conclusion.  Also, it's false to say that "most" is logically equivalent to "some".  For instance, "some apples are blue" would be true even if there were only a few apples in the entire universe that were blue.  This is not the same as if one were to say "most apples are blue," as that implies that the majority of applies are blue, and, hence, that it's more likely than not to be the case that any given apple (of unknown color) is also blue.


 * Nor is it the case that arguments from authority are necessarily deductively invalid. For instance, consider:


 * God says the Earth is flat.
 * Everything God says is true.
 * Therefore, the Earth is flat.


 * Of course, for all practical purposes, we seem to never have access to infallible authorities, which is why the argument from authority manifests itself most often as an inductive argument. Jander80 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * i like the god example as it clearly demonstrates the fallacy of even supposedly infallible authority and why any argument from authority, inductive or deductive, is a logical fallacy, even if the conclusion turns out to be correct by coincidence. it's strictly an error in argumentation. the reason i'm responding, though, is to reiterate that some is logically equivalent to most, or in fact even to one, in matters of logic. it's an issue of quantification. we have two choices: for all (the upside down A) and there exists (the backwards E). some, most and one reduce to there exists. logically speaking, the difference in meaning doesn't matter at all in making decisions because we only have those two quantifier categories to play with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.10.126 (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But it is possible to quantify the difference between "most" and "some." This is discussed in the article on generalized quantifiers at SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generalized-quantifiers/ Jander80 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ok. what that article does is build a generalized theory of logic using the language of set theory. this allows any kind of arbitrary quantifier to exist so long as it's expressible. but, this is merely a useful tool of notation to simplify expressions with and it doesn't change the reality that everything breaks down to the existential and universal quantifiers in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.10.126 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * even that doesn't really matter so much in context. i concede that if most then some holds, but if some then most doesn't. so a strict logical equivalence in the language of set theory doesn't hold. but, we're talking about syllogistic logic, not predicate logic. in order to separate between most and some in syllogistic logic, the difference would have to be defined in the premise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.10.126 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * fwiw, a more complicated predicate argument would clarify the argument from authority's place as a fallacy, but few who doubt it's not would understand it. :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.10.126 (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Argument from authority as fallacy
I have an issue with this sentence:

"Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.[1][2][3]"

And oh the irony: citations -- three for this sentence -- are by their nature an appeal to authority, and are exceedingly common. Hardly "on occasion" or "certain classes".

Of course, citations are not fallacious because they are not portrayed as deductive but as inductive, allowing the reader to evaluate the credibility of the sources, rather then accepting them as fact, as a deductive argument would require. As inductive, citations require the author's credentials, the reliability of his process, his data, and conclusions, to be accepted on the basis of faith, and are subject to ongoing scrutiny.


 * a citation isn't actually an argument, though, it's a reference. citing somebody's opinion or argument is not done to demonstrate it's validity but to defer authorship. citing a fact or study is done to allow the reader to investigate the source fully; it's proof that what is presented hasn't just been made up. in that sense, a citation (when used properly) is used to minimize the authority of the author. citing with the intent of asserting authority is, inductively or deductively, most definitely a fallacy. that's not it's role in any context.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.10.126 (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Although it is very important to emphasize the fallacious potential of these arguments when classified as deductive, there are many, many common examples of inductive reasoning including appeals to authority which do not result in fallacy.

I have not made any change, and I hope to facilitate a discussion of what should be done. Here is an example rewrite as a start:

"Arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner as a part of deductive arguments, but they are also relied on for purposes of sound inductive reasoning and are exceedingly common." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cclasby (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As the author of the sentence in question, I have no problem with your proposed rewrite. Your proposal stays true to the offered sources, and is simply a rewording of the idea which I tried (perhaps less than satisfactorily) to express. Jander80 (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cross Reference
This debate has really stuck in my craw. In some ways, the laws of logic are clear and logical, but arguing about them can be difficult. I checked the sources cited on the page and found that they were actually very general low level introductions to "clear thinking" more than rigorous works in mathematical logic. I am also painfully amused that the quest for a citation in someways exemplifies the error of an argument from authority. However, Wikipedia has policies and practices and those should be respected. This morning, I struck upon an interesting tactic: what have other wikipedias decided? I assume that French is the most accessible language for anglophones. The French article is much better and perhaps should be translated into English. It gives a nice overview of the historical development of the error. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_verecundiam Micah.t.ross (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
There is nothing about consensus in the rules of logic! It is quite possible to argue that the consensus of acknowledged experts is wrong, and citing that a consensus exists does not constitute a logical argument! If the authority is legitimate, having a consensus cannot make it any more legitimate and if the authority is illegitimate, having a consensus cannot make it any more legitimate. I strongly suspect the authors of the passages about consensus in this article to be devotees of either climate change alarmism or overpopulation alarmism or both and to be attempting to write away the fallacious nature of their arguments. (which are fallacious regardless of whether or not the thing they are arguing for is true or not) Challenging the consensus of experts is how change happens and every great reformer does it! --BenMcLean (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Induction is more messy than deduction. The argument from authority is a statistical syllogism; the "consensus" condition is merely a recognition that widespread agreement among experts is a necessary condition for the cogency of the argument.  To put it simply, consider these two premises: "99.9% of physicians agree that smoking causes lung cancer"; "0.01% of physicians agree that smoking causes lung cancer."  If the conclusion is to be "smoking causes lung cancer," then the former premise would seem to offer a better reason for accepting the conclusion than the latter, all else being equal.  Jander80 (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a false analogy. For example, does only 85% of physicians agreeing mean the reason is not as better? This is absurd. What would be the threshold, 51% to decide what to conclude? 80% at least? Who or how would you decide? How many would need to be interviewed? All physicians? At least 51% interviewed? Back the consensus argument. One person is enough to make a cogent argument, as long as it is has true or probable premises, and a logical conclusion. Two persons does not make any part of the argument better! Joseph Prymak (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The most recent version was a mess, possibly because of the influence of climate denialism evident above. I've tried to clean it up a bit. JQ (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this an Argument from Authority?
If someone were to say, "President Obama is for cutting taxes on the middle class, therefore you should be, too," would that count as an argument from authority? I thought it was (the idea that because someone popular/favorable said something it instantly has validity to it), but after reading the article, I'm not too sure. 99.52.200.110 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There is very little, if any authority on political 'right and wrong'.Pbrower2a (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

--- How about this? "User X has written her opinions about tax policy, but User X is not even a politician or economist."

Isn't that an argument from authority?

130.64.194.214 (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Questionable website sourcing
The following websites ([1 ], [2 ]) seem to me to be of dubious reliability. I believe that the comments relying on these sources should be supported with something more solid, or else removed. Jander80 (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Expertise
Seeing as how expertise is just a construct, I think in terms of pure logic and argument, this article should emphasize how fallacious and lazy such arguments tend to be. While this may be a thing we do in passing over simple issues, it is not a valid argument in terms of any intense debate. Ranze (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Appeal to Celebrity
I'd like to see a section added on appeal to celebrity (a type of appeal to authority), especially with product endorsements. Bucknastay (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Pro hominem
Firstly, if I am not mistaking, it should be pro homine and not pro hominem. But, more importantly, I am not sure why would that fallacy be the same as ab auctoritate because pro homine is not reserved for authority but rather any positive personal characteristic that is used to claim that the argument is therefore correct, for example "she is so pretty, therefore she is right" is a pro homine fallacy but is not a ab auctoritate fallacy.--StojadinovicP (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research
In No original research it is written: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses, university-level textbooks, magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses, mainstream newspapers." Explain the difference when a source is actually reliable and when a source is only powerful or held in high regard. The article should maybe mention that Argument from authority is needed when own original research is not possible, and how to assess reliability. --BIL (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

McDonald/Walton
A book by MacDonald has been cited as a source for strong claims that argument from authority is always a fallacy. The book apparently does not exist - the ISBN goes to a book with similar title by Walton. Haven't been able to check page cites but other work by Walton suggests a much more nuanced view, and also that Walton is presenting his own controversial view, not an authoritative statement of the generally agreed position. Until this is resolved, material based on the alleged McDonald cites should not be treated as reliable. JQ (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

To quote Walton's book on Argument from Authority (p28), "more recent textbooks have rated appeal to expert opinion as a kind of argument that can be reasonable in some cases, but fallacious in others". That seems good to use in the lead. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=6UxyS_4GXAkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Douglas+walton+argument+authority&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8Vc-U7HCLs-HkgXAr4HABA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Douglas%20walton%20argument%20authority&f=false JQ (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert
I've now reverted the changes to the lead, for which there was no response to the errors already noted in talk, but added back the new material, which we can discuss separately 02:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How's this current version? It seems to have the strength of both - it notes the argument isn't always a fallacy, but also why it is when it is. This seems to be what the sources are getting at with their slightly different reports - that something like believing a bomb squad technician on how to disarm a bomb isn't a fallacy, but dismissing someone's evidence by saying "My professor believes otherwise" is a fallacy. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Matthews
This section should be deleted. Matthews is not a WP:RS and his account is contradicted by more authoritative sources eg http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Human-Chromosome-Number-294 JQ (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That source agrees with it. It says: "In light of Painter's many other contributions to cytology, the scientific community accepted his estimate of the human chromosome number for 33 years". His estimate was accepted based on his stance as an authority - hence it was an appeal to authority. Then later Tijo used an improved method to prove that that was not the case. What contradicts it? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I incorporated that link into the article - since the claim it was based on Painter's authority hadn't necessarily been completely explicitly stated by Matthews, like it was in that article. So now we have several independent and reliable attestations to this, so it seems to be a perfect example of the fallacy at work. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this example works, at least if you accept the Nature article. It was perfectly reasonable to rely on Painter's work as the basis for a (probabilistic, fallible and corrigible) judgement about the number of chromosomes. This was a difficult subject and Painter's work was the best available. When better methods became available, the new number was accepted. If this is a fallacious argument from authority, then all of science is fallacious. Of course, if you accept Mathews' unsourced account in which the number of chromosomes was obvious to anyone who cared to look, then the story is different. On Matthews account, Painter was absurdly wrong, and Tijo was dishonest in describing the surprise when his methods came up with a different answer. But I suspect the "obviousness" of the number in visual images was based on hindsight. JQ (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On my talk page, I've suggested Manifesto of the Ninety-Three as a good example. Of course, any kind of celebrity endorsement works also.JQ (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that even though some people were getting the right answer though, their findings were stifled by the disproportionate weight of Painter's findings because of his perceived authority. I would guess that this stuck despite the advancements in imaging that took place during the decades, and so by the end of it, the images did show him to be plainly wrong but the number had become entrenched. So they stuck around for years until Tijo and his partner had a finding that conclusively showed the error. That doesn't at all mean all of science is fallacious - a key to science is reproducibility. It seems Painter's work couldn't be consistently reproduced, so it shouldn't have been conclusively accepted. But that integral part of science was sacrificed for the sake of authority, and that's where the fallacy lies. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also yeah that Manifesto sounds like an excellent example too! Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Etymology
Does that section really seem necessary? It doesn't really seem relevant, and its been uncited for months...maybe it should get the ax? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

citation for the fact that "authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons"
As already stated by me: "The fact that authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons doesn't require any citation, as it states the obvious, because that's exactly what *expertise* means."

quotes from wiktionary:

authority (countable and uncountable, plural authorities) (countable) A person accepted as a source of reliable information on a subject.

expertise (uncountable) Great skill or knowledge in a particular field or hobby

Ergo: a) if someone has an expertise in a field, he has a great skill or knowledge in that field, b) if someone is an authority in a field, he's accepted as a source of reliable information regarding that subject, c) if someone is an authority in some field and possesses an expertise in it, then, by definition, he possesses great skill or knowledge in that field, and is accepted as a source of reliable information regarding that subject - and, as such, "can be correct in judgments (...) more often than laypersons."

That simply *can't* be neither explained nor cited further, the same way I can't cite any sources stating that an apple is smaller than a tanker or that you can get killed more easily by jumping off a roof than by reading a book.

Also, quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#State_the_obvious

`However, there is no need to go overboard. There is no need to explain a common word like "car".`

Poponuro (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a tautology - the existence of a definition doesn't imply any actual facts about the world. We need something that actually shows it to be fact to be a source. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a tautology - the existence of a verified dictionary definition stating facts about the definiendum *does* directly and implicitly mean that we can assume the facts stated about it to be true. The definition of the word itself is the main source of its meaning and, as such, is the foremost source when it comes to stating facts about anything. If you're trying to argue with the definition, you're using the word in the wrong context, as the context of word's use is itself derived from its definition in any non-poetic sense. Nevertheless, I've added the requested citation, even if I personally consider it completely useless and redundant. Any further editing actions with regards to this particular matter on Your behalf, anonymous user, will result in a mediation request, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring, since a) I've already reverted your actions twice, b) you provided no reason nor rationale why you require a citation to fact other editors found obvious and self-explanatory, c) you've already been warned that your actions constitute vandalism actions in the past, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.252.141.175&action=history

Poponuro (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Eh I just removed the claim from the article - if its true then as you say it just states the obvious, and the intro looks cleaner without it. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"More doctors smoke Camel (cigarettes)"
A commonplace ad circa 1950 by the R.J. Reynolds stated that physicians, members of a highly-respected occupation, were more likely to smoke Camel cigarettes than any other brand of cigarettes. The consumer choice of a profession generally associated with the improvement, sustenance, and rescue of health.

This was when the link between smoking and pathologies of health was not well known, or at least was covered up. Today it would be illegal to publish or broadcast such an advertisement as unqualified advertising and it would be a violation of medical ethics for a physician of any kind to promote tobacco use.

The appeal to authority is the credibility of the medical profession transferred to a consumer product. It could conceivably work in promoting almost any consumer product from ballpoint pens to motor fuels. Pbrower2a (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice that my example of "More doctors smoke..." was deleted. Medical ethics generally greatly limit the advertising that any physician can do of any consumer product as a potential conflict of interest, especially with the authority of other physicians. Physicians must have the authority to tell people to change their ways when such ways can do harm to the patient, and practically any advertising by a physician of anything could subvert the authority of a physician. Thus a physician could never participate in the advertising of a pastry or a sausage because some physicians might be compelled to tell a patient to give those items up. A vacation site? A physician of any kind might have good cause to discourage a compulsive gambler from getting any closer to Las Vegas than Grand Canyon National Park.

The authority of the ad agency is of course specious, and appeal to a questionable authority is the substance of the fallacy. The physician depicted was fictionalized -- even drawn as a heroic caricature. No physician was named. The implicit authority was an unnamed 'national survey' that physicians were more likely to smoke Camels than any other cigarette. Adding to that, there was some pseudo-scientific material on judging a cigarette for taste and 'mildness' -- "Let your throat be the laboratory". Even if the authority ascribed to physicians was unwelcome to the medical profession, the advertising agency and the tobacco company exploited the high esteem of physicians. The medical profession had nothing to do with the ad except to find it exceptionable.

If the ad had alluded to "senior military officers", "police chiefs", "college professors", "bankers", or "research scientists" instead of to physicians it would have been similarly specious. Pbrower2a (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The example has been returned with some fine-tuning and explanation -- that even if the authority is specious the masses may still recognize the authority as legitimate. Pbrower2a (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Would an article from Advertising Age, showing how effective the ad campaign was around 60 years ago and how unconscionable it would be today, be a better and adequate source?

Physicians are huge authority figures in the lives of many people -- and they need to be. They can induce people to change some comforting habits (including smoking and the use of alcoholic beverages) that take heroic efforts to cease. They can tell people to take unpleasant tests and endure risky (but necessary) surgery or use medicines with unwelcome side effects. They can even tell people to quit driving a motor vehicle or having sex. Physicians do not take this authority lightly, and they don't compromise the authority of themselves or fellow physicians.

Here is the content of the voiceover for one of the cigarette ads. I introduce this material with a fair-use rationale in the understanding that it may still be copyrighted, but that the owners could never use it again because this sort of advertising is now banned by law in the United States and many other countries:

"You know, if you were to follow a busy doctor as he makes his daily round of calls, you'd find yourself having a mighty busy time keeping up with him. 'Time out' for many men of medicine usually means just long enough to enjoy a cigarette. And because they know what a pleasure it is to smoke a mild, good-tasting cigarette, they're particular about the brand they choose. In a repeated national survey, doctors in all branches of medicine, doctors in all parts of the country, were asked, 'What cigarette do you smoke, doctor?' Once again, the brand named most was Camel. Yes, according to this repeated nationwide survey, more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette. Why not change to Camels for the next 30 days, and see what a difference it makes in your smoking enjoyment? See how Camels agree with your throat. See how mild and good-tasting a cigarette can be." Pbrower2a (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Everytime you ask for a source or citation you're appealing to authority.
Pretty much. 71.37.223.208 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And? What's your point? That sources aren't needed? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)