this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
1762 points (98.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
6493 readers
3042 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Logical fallacy: Argument from authority.
There's a difference between an authority figure and someone with expertise in a subject. This individual isn't using a position of power to supplement his argument, he is just detailing his experience.
People really need to stop treating logical fallacy like they're harry potter spells.
By "authority" it means "authority on the subject". A well known and respected physicist would be an authority on the subject or in the field of physics. The issue necessarily isn't the lack of expertise but that the expertise shouldn't be trusted blindly but rather the findings or argument should be verified.
Not that trusting the authorities on the subject is a bad idea especially when you are yourself not an expert. It's more of a thing when trying to study something, figuring out proof of stuff and so on when you need to be aware of the potential issues.
I always thought that it meant: just because someone has authority over one subject, doesn't mean they have it for another. Just because Einstein is good at math and physics doesn't mean his quotes about philosophy and religion hold any authority.
No, it is just about the authority being used as the proof. It can be someone who is an expert on the subject (or not). See the example used in the Wikipedia article:
Einstein is an expert at math and physics but him being an expert doesn't make something true in itself and we shouldn't trust the claims etc. just because of his status. But if he makes a claim, it for sure has more merit than claim from someone not as authoritative on the subject.
That can be part of it, but the definitional aspect of the fallacy is attempting to irrationally utilize it to define logical proof.
As in it wouldn't be rational to utilize Einstein as an expert to prove something in religion.
However, you could still have a logical fallacy if you tried to appeal to authority/expert in their own field if utilizing their testimony is itself irrational.
For example any attempt to use personal testimony as evidence in the scientific method is an appeal to authority. For example It doesn't matter what Einstein's testimony is about physics, as personal testimony doesn't fit within the scientific process. Utilizing someone's personal testimony isn't going to counter an observable phenomenon, or help anyone reproduce an experiment.
On the flip side, expert witness testimony can be used to bolster the body of evidence when it comes to the metaphysical. For example, it's perfectly rational for a person who studies Nazi to list their experience when interpreting if something is a Nazi salute. As the only way to determine a Nazi salute from another movement is knowing the contextual history of the Nazi movement.