Talk:Argument from authority/Archive 5

Factually Incorrect Version?
What's incorrect? Everything is reliably cited from reputable sources. I read the discussions from when I was gone and it looks like the inaccurate stuff like that one section and example has been taken care of. FL or Atlanta (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, to start with, there's the fact that virtually every source listed in that version is either unreliable, or falsely represented in the article. Then, there's the fact that you and Perfect were explicitly warned to stop pushing your interpretation by an admin, and finally there's the fact that Perfect ended up blocked for the very same thing you're doing right now. There's even a couple of essays on what you're doing, titled Competence is Required and Civil POV Pushing, both of which essentially explain why you should either stop editing this page, or listen those other editors who know more about the subject than you. The last thing I want to do here is call in the admin to block you or tell you off, but what you're doing is extremely damaging to this article, and I will do that if you keep this up. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the admin actually read any of the sources or what's being discussed. I wasn't around when all of that happened, and I wasn't aware an admin had gotten involved. But if you go through the sources then they all say exactly what they're being cited for. It seems to me an overeager admin jumped the gun without hearing all the sides. If we were to have a more thorough review the results would be quite different. Why don't we try for mediation? The last attempt hardly even got off the ground. I'll submit a request. FL or Atlanta (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that the admin that ruled against your view didn't read any of the discussion or sources? If you are going to accuse someone of shirking their job you really should back it up as that is a serious charge.
 * I have personally gone through almost all of the citations on this page and I do not agree with your claim that the sources all said exactly what they were being cited for (which is why so many of these citations have been deleted). Many of the citations misrepresented the source material or cited the wrong source. Many of the citations were from unreliable or obscure sources. I could easily give you a half-dozen examples.Original Position (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The evidence is the usual: The admin didn't agree with him, so either the admin was personally biased against him or didn't understand the situation*. It's the same exact argument Perfect Orange Sphere made when I reminded him of what the admin said. It's an extremely common response to losing some sort of moderated engagement (be it content moderation, ArbCom cases or admin involvement in a dispute).
 * *Most intelligent editors won't go for the former tactic, as our edit histories are plain to see, and it's easy to disprove a personal bias. However, arguing that they aren't aware of the issue is much harder to disprove. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey folks, I already chimed in briefly at ANI, and I hope you'll consider giving DRN a solid go; Robert is good at cutting through the cruft and getting the core issues, at hammering out middle-ground solutions and generally seeing what has to be done when a consensus decision can't be reached between parties. But having seen this thread, I did want to stop in here make a couple of things clear.  First, Nyttend may be an admin, but their opinion carries no more weight in a content discussion than any other editor's.  They seem to have expressed some clear opinions on this topic and to the extent that they have, it was arguably inappropriate for them to have blocked someone with a different opinion, per WP:INVOLVED, though I can't say for sure without looking into the matter deeper, which I'm not inclined to do on the the behalf of a party who hasn't objected themselves.


 * Still, it's deeply problematic to declare a position void because of "incompetence"; WP:CIR is usually used in reference to behavioural issues, not content positions. If a consensus is formed and then a party continual violates that consensus, our community standards view that as a competency issue, but it's generally not considered a competency issue to have a different view of the sources and the content than is popular with other editors in a discussion space, no matter how incorrect it seems to the other parties. Again, I don't know which of those scenarios is closer to what transpired here, but I want to make the distinction clear.  You may not agree with FLoA's position, but you still have to respond to the substance of his argument and actually dig into the sources if you want your position to prevail; you don't just get to say "you're wrong, the sources don't apply and also there's an admin who was previously skeptical of some of your positions" because the first of those arguments is too vague to be of use and the second isn't directly relevant at all.


 * Likewise, it is not useful for compelling on this project to say anything along the lines of "you need to listen to us, because we know more than you do about this topic"--and for obvious reasons, this is really the very last place where one ought to have to explain why. But even putting aside the fact everyone here ought to be familiar with why such an argument is problematic, as a matter of consensus of the Wikipedia community, it doesn't matter who you are or what you think of your command of the subject matter--the weight of your arguments with regard to the content will assessed only on the basis of their conformity with the sources and the content guidelines of this project.  Point in fact, we often advise newer editors to stay away from topics in which they consider themselves experts or upon which they have strong feelings, specifically because such contributors often have difficulty divorcing their personal perspectives on the matter from the the burden of proof which governs this project, which can often lead to content decisions divergent from their own perspectives on the "truth" of a matter.


 * Anyway, thought it might be useful to make some of those points explicit, but I hope it all turns out to be quasi-irrelevant, in that I hope you call can come to a compromise solution everyone can agree with, as is often a more realistic option than parties at first think in these kinds of disputes. If DRN does not succeed, do bear in mind that WP:RfC is a good tool for soliciting additional opinions, and one which does not seem to have been utilized on this issue thus far.  Happy editing!  S n o w  let's rap 05:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate that I'm willing to go through whatever process to resolve this dispute you think best. Mediation is fine, so is RfC, topic ban, whatever. I'll also note that your description of this dispute is not accurate. Original Position (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't imagine it will help the consensus issues on the page any to dispute the point at length with you, but I will say I was just commenting narrowly on my observations of the arguments being forwarded in the ANI discussion, this thread, and a few above. Maybe there's more context that makes the dismissal of certain editors' positions more reasonable--but for a certainty, the language being used to justify that exclusions immediately above fails to comport with what is expected in a Wikipedia discussion. But I've every confidence you folks will work it all out, given the expressed desire to resolve the issue amicably, seeking community input as necessary. Good luck with mediation.  S n o w  let's rap 08:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's more context that makes the dismissal of certain editors' positions more reasonable How about the fact that every single reliable source presented agrees that it is not always a fallacy, and no reliable sources have ever been presented say that it is?
 * Also, your reference to WP:INVOLVED is inaccurate. Nyttend only became involved as a result of an AN/I notice, and it was made quite clear multiple times that it was not the editor's beliefs or opinions on content that prompted the ban, but the tendentious editing practices and blatant misuse of sources that arose from those opinions. Every argument addressing the content at AN/I or from the admin was done for the purpose of being able to avoid acting on the poor conduct. I'm not opposed to a formal request for mediation (I am thoroughly opposed to allowing Robert McClenon to mediate any dispute I am involved in, however), but as I explained at AN/I: I have virtually no hope that will work. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Epistemological Problems of Testimony
This might be a good guide to writing about the subject, and it's a very reliable source, to boot. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  20:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems with this article
I am responding to 's comment.

I just made reference to this article on Jimbo's talk page here, and I must admit it does not match what I learned in my philosophy courses. If I remember correctly in my text the "appeal to authority" fallacy was explained similarly to  this source:
 * An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
 * Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

Another source has a similar definition (for the "strong sense"):
 * The basic structure is:
 * Strong sense:
 * 1. An authority has stated that X is true; therefore
 * 2. X is true.
 * When used in a strong sense, an Appeal to Authority is always fallacious. This is because there's no guarantee that an authority will be correct. In short, even experts can be wrong.
 * When used in a strong sense, an Appeal to Authority is always fallacious. This is because there's no guarantee that an authority will be correct. In short, even experts can be wrong.

Other sources I looked at: ,. I believe the example used in my text book was:
 * (1) God is all knowing
 * (2) God said A is true
 * Therefore, A is true
 * Therefore, A is true

I think at a minimum, the strong version should be in this article. That said, many sources use the "weaker" form of "appeal to authority", regarding citing someone who is not an authority in the subject area, when there are divided opinions in the subject area, etc. This handout has an interesting collection of variations (also mentioned in some of the other links I provided), which perhaps would be worth adding to the article if we have good WP:RS for them.

I would like to help you, but I do not know if I have the patience to read through all the RS on this and try to figure out what on the Internet qualifies as RS and what does not. I will put it on my watch list and maybe jump in. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what you think is wrong about the article as it stands. Many people think that arguments from authority are inherently fallacious, but the expert consensus is that they are not. Even both of the sources you quote from here acknowledge as much:


 * "However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony."


 * "The Appeal to Authority is normally used in a weaker sense in support of a claim; and when used this way, its quality can vary from being perfectly reasonable to completely untenable."


 * As for whether to include the "strong version" you quote here, if we do so we should also include the weak version. Personally, I don't see much that is added by doing so. There is no expert consensus as to the correct form of the argument from authority, with logic textbooks and academic essays all using different versions. What we've done in the absence of this consensus is pick three of the more prominent ones (the statistical syllogism from a major logic textbook, the presumptive version from a logic textbook and from Walton in the academic literature, and the pragma-dialectic version, which is prominent in the academic literature) to give a flavor of the different ways the argument is understood. We can add more versions, but if we do so we should try to first add the more important ones (and I'm not sure that the online source you suggest is such as it is a weaker source). Also, from an aesthetic standpoint, I would think it would start to clutter the article. Original Position (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. If indeed there is "no expert consensus as to the correct form of the argument from authority", and what we have done is "pick three of the more prominent" arguments to "to give a flavor of the different ways the argument is understood" that for me as a reader is not enough.  I expect the article to give all of the major versions (and if there are numerous minor others, then make that clear and at least help the reader know where to find them).  If there is no agreement from experts on what the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy is (an interesting meta problem), then we should say that right up front rather than just picking a subset of versions, as if that is all there is.  Based on what you have said, it seems to me that our article is way too short--what I felt when I first encountered it.  But I understand your concern with clutter.  As to avoid overwhelming the lay person, either the lede or a section that explains the various sections that come later with increasing layers of detail would be helpful.  For example:
 * The Appeal to Authority is a fallacy that can result from a number of logical problems: (1) authorities speaking outside of their field of expertise (2) disagreement among experts (3) experts are fallible--they can make mistakes in even their field of expertise (4) experts speaking to novel ideas in their field  (5) appeal to popularity (6) [something about the Asch study].
 * This would cover a number of the major versions I have seen and is readable for a lay person.
 * Please keep in mind I am not proposing this exact language that I wrote on the fly. Key here is that each of the numbered items can have its own section for those who want to read more and understand the subtleties of each version. And we would provide those sections in the article.   If there a number of additional variations, those would be covered in the end.  I think our articles best serve the readers not by being short and concise, but by containing simple generalized summary information that is concise that is increasingly fleshed out and further information on particular sub-areas of interest are easy to find for those who want to know more. (Consider a history article.) Compared so some of the articles I have been working with GMOs, |GMO food, GM food controversies, this article is surprisingly short.
 * I also thought that the Argument_from_authority section started out by being too technical (and again inconsistent with the strong version I had learned), and that more prose should start before getting into symbolic logic. We could have a formal logic portion for each version, or a section at the end with all of them.   Although I agree it is concise for philosophers, our audience is lay people who may not understand such abstraction of formal logic, which is why I think it should be last not first (unlike what you see in critical thinking books that are an entire course on the subject).  I have seen this same problem in the physics entries, such as Maxwell's Equations and Schrödinger equation.  Doing all of this would be a big overhaul, but easy for an expert, right?  :-)  --David Tornheim (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the only thing I can say is that you must remember your philosophy classes wrong. I took one less than a year ago, and the page as currently written absolutely matches with what I remember from it. But more importantly, it matches what the textbook I used and quite literally every single other source I've ever found in more than a month of working on this article says about it. Check the archives, there's a list of 19 sources who all say that it's not always a fallacy, and there are at least half again that many scattered around throughout this talk page and it's archives. You provided a few more in your comments above, as Original Position pointed out.
 * Also, I read your comments on Jimbo's talk page, and all I can say to you is that if the article doesn't say what you wished it said when you linked to it, then perhaps you should have read it before linking to it. Or perhaps you should have made some effort to show how Guy's argument was fallacious (and an appeal to authority, for that matter, as he was clearly stating his views in a discussion in which people were expected to state their views), instead of just name-dropping what you mistakenly thought was a fallacy. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding comments on Jimbo's page: I did look at it before linking to it, which was why I added a little extra about what authority I meant--oneself. (I believe appeal to oneself as authority is listed among the appeal to authority fallacies, but may be a different kind of fallacy such as circular reasoning.  I remember when Gray Davis used this fallacy to say that because the voter's chose him, therefore the voters want what he wants.  As someone who voted for him I was appalled!)  As for problems with /Guy's argument, there were quite a few that I covered.  The main one was that he was saying that ordinary editors cannot be trusted to make judgments (i.e. in a jury decision), which is entirely contrary to the idea of an Encyclopedia "anyone can edit" by anonymous editors.  And if he is ruling out the ordinary editors, and leaving decisions to experts, that's bogus because we have no provision on Wikipedia for identification of experts.  So, it is a false appeal to authority, and I pointed out whose authority was really being appealed:  his own as an administrator, not as an expert (similar to Gray Davis).  Or in other cases a group of editors who share a POV.  They are also forms of might makes right, which I believe is a form of appeal to authority as well.  Now back to our scheduled program in talking about this article:...
 * The quotes I gave above made it clear that one version (strong version) of the "Appeal to Authority Fallacy" is that any appeal to authority runs into problems because even experts in their field of expertise make mistakes (even when there is a consensus among experts)--a good example would be how classical physics was overturned by modern physics. Thomas Kuhn talks about that phenomenon.
 * But we also know that such a strong version of never using experts for anything ever because they might be wrong is impractical in real life, perhaps even illogical. So indeed I'm not surprised that all the sources say that it is not always wrong to rely on experts, even if the experts might be mistaken, just as long as we are not relying on them for absolute truth.  And we do this here on Wikipedia with WP:RS and in the courts, and rely on expert testimony with some confidence, but never for absolute certainty.  (Remember that the standard for criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not 100% certainty. And a lesser standard apply for civil cases.)   Trusting experts for absolute certainty is always fallacious--that is the strong version.
 * Now in using experts in the ordinary practical way, if one uses an expert who is outside their field of expertise, that is a different kind of appeal to authority violation--a weak version. It's just as valid of a fallacy as the strong version.  They are not mutually exclusive fallacies.  And I gave a few others too, some of which are in our article.   acknowledged that there is no consensus on any single version of the appeal to authority fallacy, which now makes sense to me.  And I contend our article needs to reflect the versions that different experts articulate.
 * I think you were trying to say is that because these various sources all talk about the weak version as well, that means the strong version can be thrown out as useless or wrong, but I strongly disagree. If you want 100% truth, experts do not help. To assume they can be relied on for 100% truth is the strong version of the appeal to authority fallacy.  Do we agree now? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First, let me agree with you (as do most of the sources we've been working from on this page) that one way in which arguments from authority can be fallacious is when it claims too strong a conclusion.


 * However, I do think think the article reflects this already. For example, the second paragraph begins like such:


 * "Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning."


 * This is essentially referring to what you are calling the "strong version" of the argument. This point is also made in the first argument form listed, that has as a conclusion "There is a presumption that A is true" (presumptions are defeasible). This is then made explicit in the following sentence where it says:


 * "The argument is fallacious...if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true."


 * So I think this ground has already been fairly well covered. However, if you think this point is still insufficiently clear, feel free to try something out to clarify it.


 * Second, about the "strong version." Over the last couple of months there has been a lot of debate, sometimes unfortunately acrimonious, over how to understand the argument from authority. Here are a couple of results that came out of this debate. (1) Although some people think that the argument from authority is always or inherently fallacious, this is not the view of the experts on the issue. In nearly every RS we've looked at, the authors say that some versions of the argument from authority are not fallacious. Since there is a mistaken view otherwise, I think it is important to include this point in the lede (and one of the reasons I would disagree with your proposed lede).


 * (2) There is relatively widespread agreement among experts on some of the specific ways in which these kinds of arguments can go wrong: for instance, if an expert is speaking outside their area of expertise, or isn't a real expert, or is making to too strong a claim, etc. However, although there have been proposals to systematize this into more than just a list of examples (the pragma-dialectical version is probably the most sophisticated here), there is no consensus among experts on any of these proposals.


 * How these proposals typically work is by first proposing an argument schema for legitimate arguments from authority and then showing how illegitimate arguments from authority deviate from this schema. This is essentially what the website you cite is doing as well. The author is positing that there are really 2 different versions of the argument from authority, differentiated not by logical form, but by the strength claimed to follow from expertise in the premises. Again, I'll reiterate that I'm not opposed in principle to adding this to the Form section of the article. But I'll point out that this author's proposal is really pretty similar to what we already have in the article (that is, it agrees with (1) that some arguments from authority are not fallacious and (2) on some of the common ways in which arguments from authority can be fallacious). The main difference is that it pulls out one way in which arguments from authority can be fallacious and calls it the Strong Version of the argument. But everyone else already acknowledges that what he (Jackson?) calls the Strong Version is fallacious, they just think of it as a deviation from the more general form of the argument rather than being a different kind of argument. Original Position (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I did want to respond to two other points. First, I agree that the article could be improved if it gave a more serious and complete overview of the different ways in which this argument is formulated in the academic literature. But that is a lot of work, much of it probably outside the bounds of Wikipedia proper and edging into synthesis and original research. I'm also not sure that it would help most people who probably aren't interested in the academic debate about the nature of fallacies and want the highlights of what an argument from authority and its related fallacies are. But again, feel free to add more here if you are so inclined.


 * Second, I take your criticism of the General Form section being too technical to heart. My own background is in academic philosophy, so I am used to a higher level of abstraction than is probably appropriate for a wikipedia article. I'll try to think of ways to explain the argument in more detail rather than just relying on the logical form being self-explanatory over the next few days, and also, you should feel free to edit this as well to make it clearer. Original Position (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Your explanation is very helpful.  I will have to reread all of the article taking what you said into consideration.  I am very impressed if the article is able to cover everything you mentioned so concisely.  (I am almost sure my Critical Thinking book did not give the general form and violations stemming from it.)  So perhaps then my only concern is that it is too concise for the lay person to really appreciate how much it covers.  And as you can tell, even with some background in Philosophy and quite a bit of Boolean Logic from my studies of Electrical Engineering, I missed it too.  If you were teaching it in a course it would probably be fine to leave the text as is if it does do all of what you say it does and then help the students (as you just helped me) to appreciate it.  So, let me think if there is a good way to keep the aspect that is so concise while also making it more accessible to the lay reader.
 * As an illustration of what a way to address this: when we learned Gauss%27s_law in Physics--which took quite some time to understand--we did not start with the simple form you see in Maxwell's Equations, which would have been incomprehensible.  Like with Calculus, we more or less proved it in the way you prove that the derivative of x^2 is 2x. Then once we understood that, condensing it to the amazingly precise equation that has only two variables made sense.  Despite the fact that Maxwell's equations are able to define almost every important feature of E-M classical physics, engineers still use V=IR instead which is easier to work with. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What you are saying about the appeal is not wrong, though you are getting ridiculously wordy in saying it. However, the example you provided flatly contradicts what you are saying, so I responded to that. The only issue I really have with what you're saying is that identifying the fallacious version as the "strong" version is confusing and would be misleading. If you can find a number of sources which refer to uses of the argument in the context of deductive reasoning as the "strong" version, then I wouldn't be opposed to identifying that as an alternate term with an explanation.
 * However, if you want to re-write the article to emphasize the fallacious version, then I'm going to have to oppose you. The argument from authority is -at it's most fundamental level- an argument, not a fallacy. Like all arguments, it can be fallacious, and indeed, it is most often mentioned in wider society in the context of being fallacious. But Wikipedia's purpose is to inform, not to reinforce. Just as we don't declare popular psuedoscience to be real based on widespread belief, we will not identify this argument exclusively or primarily as a fallacy based on widespread belief. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now I understand your concern. I actually believed this article was about a fallacy or collection of fallacies called "appeal to authority", rather than about a proper form of argument and the many ways one can go astray.  When I was first introduced to fallacies--decades ago--it was from the mainstream media, as a collection of maybe 20 fallacies, where the idea was to learn all of them.  And when I took the critical thinking class, I classified "appeal to authority" as a fallacy type rather than proper form.  So you might be right that I misread my book because of bad training by mainstream media.  However, the history of "appeal to authority" in our article show there was indeed a focus on the fallacies, and it appears that focus has changed somewhat recently to the focus on proper form.  Maybe I had an author from the "old school" focusing more on the fallacy angle than the proper form aspect.  So, it all makes more sense now.  Thank you.  Sorry if I wasted your time with my confusion--at least I had the good judgment to talk to you both first before trying to change the article!   That said, maybe it is worth trying to help the readers who do come to the article with the kind of confusion I had, so they might leave with the insight I now  have.  Which might further prevent drama like you might have had in the past... --David Tornheim (talk)
 * Looking at the first part of the sentence "Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning": I definitely missed that as being identical to the strong form. Anyone not well versed in logic would be likely to miss it too.  I thought the sentence was referring to any deductive reasoning, that also had at least one of the others flaws such as expert in the wrong field--rather than meaning all deductive reasoning period.  I actually thought that the general form was considered deductive reasoning too.  I take it because of the use of probabilities it is not considered deductive reasoning?  I really regret I did not take a more advanced logic class.  --David Tornheim (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Contrary evidence not rendering an appeal to authority invalid
How does presenting evidence that contradicts a position not render an appeal to authority fallacious? If Bob says X, and then I show evidence that disproves X, could someone refute that by saying "well Bob disagrees"? There is no presumption that an authority figure is correct the moment someone produces contrary evidence. The page even says that appeals to authority are not themselves evidence for a position's truth, so how can something that isn't evidence for something's truth trump evidence itself? 172.58.200.232 (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How does presenting evidence that contradicts a position not render an appeal to authority fallacious?There are two answers to that. One is philosophical, the other is practical. Bleive it or not, the philosophical answer is the shorter one, so let's start with that.
 * The philosophical answer is that in the case where one person says "Authority X says Y so Y is probably true," and the other person says "Well, I have this evidence for Not Y right here, see?" the legitimacy/accuracy of the first person's appeal is unchanged. Y is probably still true. (Notice how that's not the same thing as "Y is true.") Even if the evidence demonstrates conclusively that Not Y was true, the argument took the case of an 'underdog win', so to speak. In other words, the less likely conclusion ended up being the true one. That doesn't undermine the likelihood of the more likely conclusion within the context of the argument. Furthermore, there will be many cases when the evidence is fabricated, in error, or misinterpreted. In these cases, more practical reasons prevail.
 * If you and I were arguing about whether evolution was true (and I took the "not true" position), and you said "Yeah, well my biologist friend said it's true, and he's more likely to be right about this than you," and I were to respond with "Yeah, well did you know that the mt genome of B. abyssicola, like those of other oegopsids studied so far, has two long duplicated regions that include seven genes (COX1–3, ATP6 and ATP8, tRNAAsn, and either ND2 or ND3) and that one of the duplicated COX3 genes has lost its function?" How would you parse that? The answer is (most likely) that you wouldn't. You would respond with a blank look, to which I could proudly proclaim "My evidence trumps your expert!"
 * Except my 'evidence' didn't do any such thing. The truth or falsehood of evolution doesn't depend on whether or not one particular squid gene has lost its function. Of course, my evidence sounds impressive, but it doesn't actually speak to the issue.
 * So what if, instead of that, I were to say "Yeah, well, a bird can't fly with half-formed feathers!" That's a lot more comprehensible, and (once fully considered) it speaks to the question of evolution. A sparrow bred to have wings with short, hairlike feathers would not be able to fly, yet the gradual changes predicted by evolution would have required such feathers at some point.
 * Again, the evidence doesn't contradict the expert, because it's only by interpreting the evidence in a narrow view (that the only purpose that feathers serve is flight) that it appears to do so.
 * So since you're clearly winning at this point, I pull out my trump card. I bring up a photograph of a a rock made of hardened river clay. Embedded in that rock are the footprints of what is obviously a dinosaur, right next to the footprints of what is obviously a human in moccasins. I proudly tell you to stuff that in your pipe and smoke it, and await your capitulation with smug superiority.
 * Except you don't capitulate, but instead pull out your mobile phone and show me that the whole internet has heard of this rock, and everyone knows it's fake. The guy who faked it even came forward to admit it. Once again, my 'evidence' did nothing to contradict your expert appeal.
 * In addition, part of what makes someone an expert is their ability to comprehend and accurately judge the evidence. Had I had that same hypothetical argument with your biologist friend, she could have explained to me how exactly I was misinterpreting the first two pieces of evidence, and what features of the last could have clued me in to the fact that it was faked. And if an expert source were to say something that flew in the face of evidence, and the evidence were accurate, and easily identified and interpreted? Well, that person couldn't very well be an actual expert, now could they? And if the expert were to be presented with actual evidence, correctly interpreted that spoke to the issue at hand... They'd change their mind. The appeal to their authority would not longer be in conflict with the evidence.
 * One final note to point out is that none of our sources state this caveat. Adding it in changes what they're saying, changing a well-sourced claim into a claim from original research. That flies in the face of WP policy. I hope this helps. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Examples
I think we need to focus a little effort on the examples. I can do some work to dig up better examples than those we have (in each case, the authority appealed to was a legitimate authority which happened to be wrong due to a lack of evidence, or evidence which was poorly understood at the time), as I don't believe they do a good job of illustrating the nature of the argument. Also, as discussed above, one of those examples isn't -in fact- an example at all. I'll see what I can do tomorrow to find a good, accurate example, and perhaps a fallacious example to replace the ones we have. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  03:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that the examples need work. I found a better source for the Chromosome story already (this article from Nature: http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/The-chromosome-number-in-humans-a-brief-15575), that is more sympathetic towards Painter than the Matthews article in Telegraph which seems to be the source for most of the material here (although it does note some similar concerns). I'm just working my way down the page and haven't gotten that far yet. Original Position (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I finished reading that source, and I have to say that it doesn't seem to support the assertion that Painter's count was accepted on his authority. In fact, the paper spends much of its length describing the many and varied difficulties faced by those attempting to count chromosomes, and noting that a number of other counts revealed 48. Again, while I'm certain that there were some people arguing that Painter's expertise lent weight to his count, it doesn't seem to hold water that this was a widespread phenomenon. Worth noting is that Painter's count was his first paper published on human cytology. This is a double-edged sword, as it would make any appeal to authority in this case an example of the fallacy (and thus worth noting as a fallacious example), as well as severely reducing the likelihood that scientists would actually appeal to his authority. There were several scientists with more authority on this subject than Painter.
 * Looking at the example section, to support the claim that "From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter's authority," the article links to this source, which doesn't support it. The closest it comes is to say "Painter's estimate was very close to the real human diploid number of 46, and the quality of his data was good. In light of Painter's many other contributions to cytology, the scientific community accepted his estimate of the human chromosome number for 33 years." If one quote mined the second sentence, it might appear to support the claim, but it ceases to do so when you put it back into context. What makes it worse is that those sentences were the end of one paragraph, and the next goes on to describe subsequent improvements to the method of counting chromosomes, then directly ascribes the Tijo and Levan count to those improvements. In short, the source seems to contend that difficulties in counting chromosomes were the main driving force behind the incorrect count. It mentions Painter's count being accepted based on his other contributions, but I'm not sure that this is a reference to his count being considered definitive, given that other scientists also counted 48. It may have simply meant that his specialty in insect cytology was overlooked and his contributions to human cytology accepted because the two fields were not so different.
 * Checking some of the other sources, I found a book which I don't own (and for which no ebook is immediately available, and a former geocities web page, attributed to Robert Matthews, but which cannot be confirmed. I'm sorry, but I have a number of problems with that. I'm not contending that the source wasn't written by the physicist and mathematician, but I find it notable that it is an often cited source for creationist articles, and not much else (try googling the title; "The bizarre case of the chromosome that never was" to see for yourself).
 * Setting aside possible issues of authorship, the statement by Matthews states that scientists appealed to the authority of Painter (who was far more of an authority on insect cytology, which makes this one of the better possible examples, as -if true- it would appear to be an appeal to illegitimate authority) is only ever justified by pointing out that subsequent review of images published in textbooks claiming 48 chromosomes showed only 46 chromosomes. But that completely ignores the difficulties in counting chromosomes pointed out by the other sources. It could well be that one could find anywhere from 40 to 52 chromosomes in a given image, depending on what number one expected to be there. I've taken a look at some of these images, and they are, in fact, quite difficult to count.
 * So at this point, the chromosome example seems to be the best, yet it is still shot through with issues. I'm going to nix the entire section for now. I'm not opposed to having an example section (in fact, I'm enthused about it), or about using this particular example (heavily re-worded), provided we can verify the Matthews source. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Painter example was originally sourced to a May 14, 2000 article in the Telegraph. Unfortunately, the linked article is of a Internet Archive copy of a different website. I tend to assume that the article is real, but can't track an trustworthy source for it (frustratingly, the Telegraph's online archives only go back to June 2000). That being said, the article from Nature is almost certainly more authoritative. I think the main difference in it from the article here is that it emphasized the difficulty of identifying the number of chromosomes for Painter, given the technology available at the time. Thus, even though Painter was wrong, it doesn't support the idea that he was doing something wrong in making his conclusion, or that his contemporaries were making a mistake in accepting it. However, it does support the idea that once it was accepted that there were 48 chromosomes that this "preconception" did lead later scientists astray, making it more difficult for them to the truth. In general though, I don't think it is a very good of a fallacious use of the argument of authority, but it does work as an example of the danger of relying too much on past conclusions in science.Original Position (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (frustratingly, the Telegraph's online archives only go back to June 2000) I just searched them, and I was able to search back further, but with no result for that article. There was only one article with the word "Chromosome" in the body or title from April 1, 2000 to June 1, 2000. I'm not sure this is such a bad example, though, provided we can find a reliable source. Painter was (arguably) an expert in insect cytology, not human cytology. That in itself might be cause to call this an example of appealing to an illegitimate authority. Of course, I could be wrong. It might be that insect cytology and human cytology are so similar that an expert in one might well be considered an expert in the other. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen no one claim that he wasn't qualified to write on human cytology. Original Position (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to (reluctantly) agree. I put that forth because it would fit neatly into the hypothesis that this is a good example. It may be that my desire to have an examples section outweighs our ability to build one. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @FL or Atlanta For the reasons discussed above, I don't think the Chromosome case is a good example. To be brief, the best sources (articles cited on this Talk page and in the article from Nature (a better source than a science reporter from The Telegraph) do not agree that Painter was obviously wrong. For instance, the other citation from Nature says, "By looking at Painter's drawings of his slides, one can appreciate how difficult this process made it to arrive at a correct chromosome count." It is also clear that the correct number was found because of technological advances that made it easier to count chromosomes, not just because people started looking at the same pictures that Painter had, "This combination of treatments enhanced chromosome spreading without deterioration or fragmentation, thereby facilitating better chromosome counts. In fact, in 1956, these techniques enabled researchers Joe Hin Tjio and Albert Levan to make a more accurate estimate of the human chromosome number."
 * Second, we do not have a good citation for this as an example of this fallacy. We have a newspaper article by a science reporter claiming that scientists accepted this result because of an overreliance on Painter's authority, but we don't have a source from either a discussion of this fallacy or from an expert on chromosomes or science historian backing up Matthew's claim. In fact, the various articles in Nature seem to contradict Matthews account.
 * Since this is meant to be an example, it should not be controversial. It should be a clear example of the fallacious use of authority. In my view, this is not.Original Position (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @FL or Atlanta Adding new sources that do not specifically address the issues raised about this example are not sufficient to allay my concerns. To reiterate, the article currently claims that Painter's photos in later textbooks "clearly" show 23 pairs of chromosomes rather than 24. You have cited an article from Robert Matthews, a non-subject matter expert scientist/science journalist claiming this. However, the other cited sources (including the two new ones you introduced), are more reliable (articles from academic journals on the history of the study of the human chromosome) and all stress how difficult it was to count the number of chromosomes on the basis of Painter's data. In fact, Painter's claim was eventually only corrected because of the development of new technologies that made separating out the chromosomes much easier. Thus, I do not think it is well-sourced that the photographs showed Painter to be "obviously" wrong. Nor do I see adequate support for Matthews' claim that "Scientists had preferred to bow to authority rather than believe the evidence of their own eyes."
 * Second, the article currently suggests that people then counted the correct number of chromosomes as 46, but continued to claim it was 48 based on Painter's authority. This is nowhere in the literature, except again, maybe from Matthews' article. Instead, the other sources say that with the publication of the Tjio and Levan paper in 1956 clearly showing 46 chromosomes that scientists quickly accepted the new count. So again, we don't see a case here of people accepting an authority in the face of of evidence.
 * Since those are the crucial claims to support this as an example of a fallacious argument from authority, I do not think this functions as a good example. And again, an example shouldn't be contentious, but rather a clear example of the fallacy involved. Let's work on finding a good, clear, non-contentious example of this fallacy instead of pushing this one on the basis of a single newspaper column. Original Position (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The Matthews source is unverifiable, as illustrated above and here. In short, there are no reliable sources which support this view of the case. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  19:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not unverifiable, there are multiple sources that support what it states. More popular summaries of issues are cited everywhere on Wikipedia, not every single thing needs to be published in a journal. Further, that discussion ended with a positive view of the source. You yourself say "I do think the article is faithfully reproduced on that website. I do think the article was written by that author", someone else presented the same article being cited elsewhere "David Orrell cites an article of the same title for the same date and publication in the bibliography of The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction (2008)", and someone else showed that the archive in general is reliable "The site archived scientific publications. It has lots of others that are authentic". No one in the discussion says the source is bad or can't be used. FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First off, your insistence that there are such sources is very different from you actually providing them, which is what is necessary here. Second, we cannot cite other wikipedia pages, nor is there a valid argument from precedent in wikipedia. Finally, one single source which contradicts numerous other sources written by individuals with more expertise in the subject isn't enough to build that example. Nor is it generally reliable. If I posted it to RSN under those terms (instead of intentionally failing to mention that more reliable sources contradicted it, as I actually did), I can promise you it would not pass muster.
 * Now, regarding that specific source, there are a bunch of problems with what you're saying.
 * No-one showed that archive to be "generally reliable". Perfect Orange Sphere pointed out one case that wasn't obviously a forgery.
 * My opinion on the accuracy of the archive is immaterial. The source doesn't appear to be reliable, nor does one source represent enough coverage, given the characterization all the other sources give the situation.
 * You left out the very next sentence of Mangoe's post, which was that the David Orrell citation occurred after the archived version, and could have referenced it.
 * You claimed that no-one said the source was unreliable, but the very first reply in that thread, from Meatsgain did exactly that. DrChrissy then questioned the reliability of the archive, as well as the authenticity of the article. In fact, the only person who endorsed it was Perfect Orange Sphere. The editor who added it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * “your insistence that there are such sources is very different from you actually providing them”


 * They and what they say are provided in the edit itself. Everything from a biography of Painter to Nature articles discussing the events.


 * “we cannot cite other wikipedia pages”


 * I’m not citing Wikipedia pages for any fact. I’m citing them for established practice as far as sources go.


 * “contradicts numerous other sources”


 * What sources does it contradict?


 * “Nor is it generally reliable.”


 * There’s no whatsoever argument for it being unreliable.


 * “If I posted it to RSN under those terms (instead of intentionally failing to mention that more reliable sources contradicted it, as I actually did), I can promise you it would not pass muster”


 * There are no sources that contradict it. And hypotheticals aren’t support. Saying “well I’m sure it wouldn’t pass” carries no weight, especially when it already passed scrutiny.


 * “No-one showed that archive to be "generally reliable". Perfect Orange Sphere pointed out one case that wasn't obviously a forgery”


 * If you think there’s fraud going on then its your job to provide evidence for it. You yourself already said you have no doubt the article is legitimate, which is reasonable because there is absolutely no reason to doubt it.


 * “The source doesn't appear to be reliable”


 * The author is a BBC science correspondent.


 * “nor does one source represent enough coverage”


 * That’s why there are many sources cited.


 * “You left out the very next sentence of Mangoe's post, which was that the David Orrell citation occurred after the archived version, and could have referenced it”


 * It doesn’t. He cites it here and the citation can be seen here. There’s no reference to the archive.


 * If it’d make you feel more comfortable, we could use that book itself as the source. I’ll re-add it that way so this archive business can be a non-issue.


 * “You claimed that no-one said the source was unreliable, but the very first reply in that thread, from Meatsgain did exactly that”


 * He never said that the source was unreliable, he said he was “Not sure how one could argue the link in question is reliable”.


 * “DrChrissy then questioned the reliability of the archive, as well as the authenticity of the article”


 * DrChrissy was asking about the Internet Archive itself. He said “The second question (again genuine) is whether web.archive.org. is generally considered RS”. That’s the archive he was asking about.


 * He said “A BBC reporter would normally be considered reliable”, and you yourself say you agree this was written by Robert Matthews, so his words support the article. FL or Atlanta (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First, please start using accepted formatting for indentation and quoting. The way you do it is difficult to read. Second, I'm not responding to most of what you said because there's no point, you seem to live in your own little world and I don't see the upside to explaining how you've misinterpreted everything I and everyone else has said. So I only have three points to make:
 * What sources does it contradict? Every other source used in the section. Read the other two sources. They're linked in (and discussed in) the thread above. Neither of them ever claim that Painter's authority was the reason the wrong numbers stood for so long. The conclude that insufficient technology was the reason. It's quite clear once you read them.
 * There’s no whatsoever argument for it being unreliable. Bullshit. This is pure, unmitigated bullshit. 3/4 of my last post was me explaining to you why that source isn't reliable, you quoted from a thread (and even from specific comments) where people gave reasons why it should be considered unreliable. You might disagree with one or all of my arguments, but to sit here and say there are no arguments at all? That's bullshit and you ought to damn well know by now that it won't work on me.
 * If you still disagree? Well, go find some reliable sources that explain why the two academic sources don't attribute this to Painter's authority and claim that it should be attributed to his authority. They'll need to be academic, and written by people who know the field. I would take that as good evidence that this was a case of appealing to authority and support the inclusion of the section. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

“Neither of them ever claim that Painter's authority was the reason the wrong numbers stood for so long”

This 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”. This says “If anyone must bear the burden for broadcasting the incorrect human chromosome number, it is Painter”, saying that this was an “error…for which he was…universally cited”.

We have a firsthand report that a textbook writer used Painter’s estimate and was lead into error because of it. This source says “Painter himself took the evidence of his 'best cell' and reported the number as forty-eight, confirming an error that would be perpetuated in dozens of textbooks (including one of my own)”.

And here says “Human chromosomal counts sometimes suggested a figure different from 48, but most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so”.

All the relevant sources say it was because of Painter.

“3/4 of my last post was me explaining to you why that source isn't reliable”

There weren’t any arguments for the source itself being unreliable. It says nothing anyone’s accused of being an error, everyone agrees the author is reliable, there’s never been evidence presented that it’s a forgery.

“where people gave reasons why it should be considered unreliable”

Some people said we might not be able to tell if it is reliable, but no one gave evidence for reliability. There’s a difference between not having evidence something is true and having evidence something is false.

“That's bullshit and you ought to damn well know”

Its just a discussion, no need to get heated... FL or Atlanta (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All the relevant sources say it was because of Painter. Only if you cherry pick statements from the source.
 * This 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”. Yes, the last sentence of a paragraph that begins with "By looking at Painter's drawings of his slides, one can appreciate how difficult this process made it to arrive at a correct chromosome count." and sets the stage for the next section, which was titled "Tjio and Levan Use Improved Methods to Establish the Chromosome Number as 46" (emphesis added). The entire section then talks about how advances in technique and technology made better counts possible. And that is from a source which never once states nor insinuates that anyone ever rejected the Tjio and Leven count on the basis of Painter's authority.
 * This says “If anyone must bear the burden for broadcasting the incorrect human chromosome number, it is Painter”, saying that this was an “error…for which he was…universally cited” First off, that doesn't evince your point, at all. All it says is that Painter was responsible for it. It doesn't say anything about scientists deferring to Painter's authority about the count. Do you know what that souces does say about why people believed Painter? "Tjio remarks that the early observations of sectioned testis material were difficult to interpret and that the observations from smear preparations in the early 1950s were of poor quality and wishful interpretations of the configurations41. I believe, however, that the overriding factor in challenging ‘48’ was the quality of his preparations. They were simply the best human metaphase spreads that had been made. There was no question about the count!" (emphasis added) That directly states that the quality of his work, not his perceived authority was responsible for promulgating his count.
 * And with respect to the reception the Tjio and Levan paper got? What does it say? "As mentioned in the introduction, human genetics in 1956 was in a different state, and the Tjio and Levan report would have an important effect on the field." (emphasis added) And again, this source never states nor insinuates that the Tjio and Levan paper was ever rejected on the basis of Painter's authority.
 * There weren’t any arguments for the source itself being unreliable. Bullshit. There's nothing more to say to that. You're lying, or you're utterly incapable of comprehending the post, which would put your intelligence at a level that would preclude you from figuring out how to use WP. So you're lying. Whether you're being willfully ignorant of what I said or intentionally refusing to acknowledge it makes no difference.
 * Its just a discussion, no need to get heated... First off, lay off the condescending attitude. You have a serious problem dealing with people who disagree with you. Second, "bullshit" is a common term with a common and unambiguous meaning. Using it doesn't imply anger, it implies a desire to be understood perfectly clearly. Given your history of misunderstanding almost every single comment directed at you, playing word games with semantics, and downright lying about what has been said to and about you on multiple occasions, it should come as no surprise that I would say "bullshit" instead of "you are clearly misrepresenting what has been said and are making factually incorrect assertions about it." The former is clear and unambiguous, the latter is something you could play word games with. This desire to be so clear has arisen in response to months of your continued refusal to acknowledge even being capable of making an error, and working on pushing your own skewed view on an article in defiance of every rational argument as to why we shouldn't. You have been condescending, arrogant and the next best thing to completely clueless throughout, requiring me and OP to explain even the most basic concepts in philosophy to you. Explanations which, I have seen firsthand, tend to either fly completely over your head, or to simply go in one ear and right out the other. You are an extremely difficult person to deal with, and as such, you should expect people to be blunt with you after several months of trying to be politic have resulted in nothing more than continued refusal on your part to budge in the slightest. I'm not trying to be rude, or to make this about you. I'm not angry, and frankly, am very unlikely to ever get angry about anything that happens on WP, because it doesn't really affect my life. But if you insist upon commenting on my behavior as you did above, and presuming to scold me for what you think is my emotional state, you need to expect me to respond. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll start my response by replying to the old edit of your's you linked to.

“the paper spends much of its length describing the many and varied difficulties faced by those attempting to count chromosomes”

And the page says that his count was based off bad data, like the sources report.

“and noting that a number of other counts revealed 48”

A small number – there was a lot of variance, and it was ultimately Painter’s authority the inaccurate number was based on.

“it doesn't seem to hold water that this was a widespread phenomenon”

The source directly says he was “universally cited” for it, and we even have a firsthand account from a textbook author saying he based the inaccurate number on this. Another says virtually everyone got his result because it was what they were expecting to find by this point.

“Worth noting is that Painter's count was his first paper published on human cytology”

That’s not worth noting at all. He was a well-respected cytologist, and cytology wasn’t so specialized that there were specific human cytologists.

“as well as severely reducing the likelihood that scientists ‘would’ actually appeal to his authority”

The sources say they did, so the page must say they did.

“If one quote mined the second sentence, it might appear to support the claim, but it ceases to do so when you put it back into context.”

How? It says “In light of Painter's many other contributions to cytology” – that is, based on his authority on the subject – “the scientific community accepted his estimate of the human chromosome number for 33 years” – his result was taken as the answer.

“and the next goes on to describe subsequent improvements to the method of counting chromosomes”

What’s that got to do with anything?

“the source seems to contend that difficulties in counting chromosomes were the main driving force behind the incorrect count”

Indeed, that’s why Painter got it wrong. And that’s why it shouldn’t have been taken as fact based on his authority.

“It may have simply meant that his specialty in insect cytology was overlooked and his contributions to human cytology accepted because the two fields were not so different”

They weren’t two fields. It was just cytology.

“The entire section then talks about how advances in technique and technology made better counts possible”

Obviously, otherwise we’d be stuck with the wrong count today.

“All it says is that Painter was responsible for it”

Because he was “universally cited” for it.

“That directly states that the quality of his work, not his perceived authority was responsible for promulgating his count”

That’s talking about Tijo’s work, not Painter’s. It directly says Tijo had to “question authority regarding ‘48’”, and found the answer because he was “more likely than others” to do so.

“And again, this source never states nor insinuates that the Tjio and Levan paper was ever rejected on the basis of Painter's authority.”

Neither did I o_o

You’re arguing against something no one said

'“Bullshit. There's nothing more to say to that.”'

That’s…not exactly a persuasive argument.

“First off, lay off the condescending attitude”

I wasn’t trying to be condescending, I'm being genuine. I was just saying you seem to be getting overworked about what’s really a minor issue. We've talked together a long time, I can tell when you're not quite your usual self. Are things going alright? FL or Atlanta (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Facepalm. That is literally all I can do after reading this. I have nothing more to say to you except: find sources that actually support your changes or go away. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A Third Opinion has been requested. Aside from editors who have commented briefly, there have been three editors heavily involved in this dispute. For that matter, I am closing the request. There had been a previous effort to request formal mediation. It was removed when one of the editors filed a WP:ANI request, but that request has since been archived. I would suggest that a new request for mediation be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In any case, after any lengthy talk page dispute finally resulted in a Third Opinion request, it would be helpful for one editor to provide a clear concise civil summary. Take that advice in making the statements at RFM. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Psychological basis" section
This section currently opens with the claim that arguments from authority are founded on a cognitive bias. It cites a source which says no such thing. The section then proceeds to discuss arguments from authority as if they exhibit cognitive errors.

I thought a consensus was reached in January or so that the reliable sources all say that arguments from authority are not fallacious. Must we have an edit war over every single individual section of this article before we can arrive at a version that agrees with the sources? Or are the editors involved that determined to keep pushing their pet theory about appeals to authority? Lord Mondegreen (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it "says no such thing"? The section begins after a discussion about arguments from authority, and then says "Social psychological experiments have long confirmed this tendency to accept ideas and proposals from apparent consensus and authority" and then goes on to discuss the Asch experiments, among others. The source is so much like the section that they could have written it.
 * And no, a consensus was never reached that the reliable sources all say that. I'd be perfectly happy with a consensus version that doesn't give as much weight to that position as I'd like, but apparently your crowd insists on trying to delete anything that even remotely disagrees with your view that we should have infallible faith in them (like the example and, evidently, the psychology section). Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, could you quote the exact passage which contains "a discussion about arguments from authority"? Lord Mondegreen (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to reach a consensus that the sources say that the argument is not always a fallacy when the sources say that the argument is not always a fallacy. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just re-read that last comment. Could you please quote back where anyone has ever said we should have infallible faith in the claims of authorities? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  12:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)