User:David Tornheim/Argument from authority introduction

This is an alternative introduction to Argument from authority. See also User_talk:Endercase/Argument_from_authority_introduction

An argument from authority is a logical argument which asserts the likely truth of a specific truth claim, because it comes from an expert in the subject matter. A common misuse of this form of argument occurs when the "expert" is an expert in the wrong field (e.g. a professional baseball player claiming that a particular breakfast cereal is healthy.) The more precise definition of argument from authority is a defeasible argument and a statistical syllogism taking the particular structure:
 * X is an expert on subject Y,
 * X says A about something covered under Y,
 * A is very likely true as it is in the expert's field.

The argument can lead to an informal fallacy when misused.
 * A valid argument is one in which a recognized authority on the relevant subject is appealed to by citing a statement by that authority. This is a form of inductive reasoning in that the conclusion is not logically certain, but highly likely.
 * Examples include following the treatments prescribed by a medical doctor, or citing a respected author to establish claims of fact in a written work.
 * An invalid argument by which the authority appealed to is compromised in some way; such as not being familiar with the subject or giving views that are unsupported by scientific rigor, also known as controversial claims.
 * For example, citing a popular astrophysicist for claims about molecular biology, or citing a long-retired scientist for claims about a current debate. This fails in that the first proposition is untrue.