Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:23, 23 February 2023

Philosophy: Logic B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Fictitious citation

As mentioned in the edit summary, in my user talk page, and on AlphabeticThing9's user talk page, Sadler, Troy (2006). "Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education" does not support the claim that "others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument." Although I have given such reasoning, no reasoning has been provided for why one might believe that this citation does support this claim. I did not remove the claim, I just removed the citation. As the purpose of the study is unrelated to the claim, a page number should be included in the citation to where you think this source supports the claim being made. The sane thing to do would be to just leave the source removed until the contributor came back with justification for why this citation supposedly does support the claim. Instead, since this citation was not only being re-added, but it was removing other valuable information from the page, I went through the pains of trying to understand why someone would believe that this does support the claim made (which is much harder to do, as I'm trying to empirically prove a negative).

I suspect that perhaps one thought that the fact that "Eight participants identified the appeal to authority as evidence of fallacious reasoning" that this would support the claim being made, but this is an entirely different claim. Nobody disagrees that arguments from authority may at times be fallacious. The claim is that there are people who believe that it is always fallacious. Furthermore, even if it did support this claim, is this really relevant to the page? These participants don't produce any arguments or have any credentials which are relevant to whether or not we should accept the claim that it is always fallacious, and 8 out of 17 arbitrary participants wouldn't really tell us anything about the stance of people in general. Philosophers in general do not believe this is true, and you can find out this much in any intro to philosophy class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regtic (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If there are no objections, then I will remove this citation since it doesn't support the claim Regtic (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It clearly states using authorities as the primary means of supporting an argument is a fallacy. This is beginning to sound a lot like a combination of WP:POVPUSH and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The key word is always, which is not in the source. The author isn't taking a stance on the issue, that's just a characterization of what the fallacy is. I'm not going to push this further, because I think there are far more misleading things on this page which would benefit from our focus than this issue. I hope you will continue the discussion below. Regtic (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If he says it in general then "always" is a fair rendenition. "Always a fallacy", "a fallacy in general to", etc. they all mean the same thing. Plus the word "always" doesn't need to mean "always" y'know? 65.204.170.68 (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Always does in fact have to mean "always".

"Eight participants identified the appeal to authority as evidence of fallacious reasoning"

is of course _an argument from authority_.

Ironic that an argument from authority, made by an obscure author in a shit journal unrelated to logic/philosophy (ie a not very authoritative authority authority), is apparently accepted as evidence that "arguments from authority are always fallacious", despite _not even saying_ that arguments from authority are _always_ fallacious. 24.186.244.70 (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, if it is a fallacy it is an argumentum ad populum. But why are you talking about this? It's not in the article but on someone's user page, and this page is about improving the article, not about improving someone's user page. Also, we are supposed to use reliable sources to do that, not our own reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I emailed Dr. Sadler to check whether he intended his article to be interpreted as used here, and he responded in part "I was trying to make a case to science teachers and science teacher educators that we should be helping science learners to support their arguments with more than just a simple appeal to an authority figure. We should help students consider underlying evidence associated with expert opinion. ... Supporting reasoning by relying on ideas from authorities with relevant expertise is quite appropriate and desirable. Helping science learners appreciate the value of expert opinion and consensus is critical. The challenge that we see in current discourse (e.g., social media and other public spaces) are appeals to false authority, and this I would argue is always problematic. Subscribing to flat earth ideas because an athlete advocates this view; using a malarial drug to treat COVID because a political figure, who has no medical or scientific expertise, promotes it; rejecting vaccines because a TV doctor, whose doctorate relates to psychology and not virology, advises against them are recent examples of ways in which arguments from (false) authority are so problematic. It was not the intent of my article to suggest that we should not pay attention to legitimate authorities and expertise. On the contrary, I would argue that as a society we should be relying more on authorities with relevant expertise." I've deleted his article as a source for the claim it was cited for, as he did not intend it to be interpreted that way. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately that can't be accepted here. One of the core concepts for creating articles is that we can't make use of original research. While I'm not doubting what you're saying, your assertion that you sought out this private communication and we should use it to guide how we construct the article is the epitome of original research. We have to use reliable, public sources, and these are interpreted in light of reliable, public sources. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You undid my edits in their entirety, when most of them had absolutely nothing to do with Sadler's article. Please explain why you objected to the rest of my edits, and if you cannot explain, you should revert your changes and make a single edit to reintroduce the Sadler citation -- pending discussion here. I'll agree that my email exchange with him constitutes WP:OR, but that wasn't my primary reason for deleting it. The primary reason: his article isn't WP:RS for an article on logical fallacies, and he does not state in the article that it is always fallacious to draw on authorities. The focus of his article is science education; it was published in a science education journal, not a philosophy-related journal, and he does not cite any philosophy references for his own interpretation of the fallacies he discusses. Although one might infer from his abbreviated treatment that it's always fallacious to appeal to authority, his own use of references contradicts that interpretation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If you agree that it constitutes OR, then sadly we just can't use it to build the article 35.137.34.16 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, the bulk of my edit was unrelated to Sadler and was carried out for good reason -- so it is inappropriate to revert the entire edit. If an edit makes 5 changes, and you believe that 1 of them is inappropriate, the appropriate way to deal with it is to address the 1, not revert all 5. Also, my 20:56 reply about the reasons for not citing Sadler is not WP:OR. In and of itself, an article having been published does not make it WP:RS for a given claim. WP:RSCONTEXT exists for a reason. This issue has clearly been debated here without resolution. Perhaps it's time to either take it to a noticeboard for additional input or to ask for mediation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion the rest was pretty trivial word changes like "a claim made by an authority on some topic is used as evidence to support one's own claim" vs. "the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument". the only big change was you swearing one of the authors told you something. hey did you know that I e-mailed the author and he said "hell nah man i ain't never speak to that dude he better stop yappin or imma come stomp that homie"? Trust me bro he totally did bro 209.16.116.220 (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You clearly didn't look carefully at the changes if you think that's the only other change I made. You can view them using the revision history tool, and I also specified the multiple changes in my edit summary: "Reworded the opening to make clearer what conditions distinguish valid from fallacious arguments from authority. Added 2 references and deleted some others that did not substantiate the claims they were cited for. Modified the "general form" so that it illustrates both valid and fallacious uses." You are also ignoring the argument I made subsequently for removing Sadler's citation:

WP:RSCONTEXT exists for a reason. His article isn't WP:RS for an article on logical fallacies, and he does not state in the article that it is always fallacious to draw on authorities. The focus of his article is science education; it was published in a science education journal, not a philosophy-related journal, and he does not cite any philosophy references for his own interpretation of the fallacies he discusses. Although one might infer from his abbreviated treatment that it's always fallacious to appeal to authority, his own use of references contradicts that interpretation.

Do you have any response to this actual argument? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that independent of whether or not you emailed Dr. Sadler (which is more an issue of verifiability than original research), it's pretty clear that his article should not be considered a reliable source here. There are no shortage of high quality WP:RS to cite here instead of a journal article.

On the other hand, as well supported by reliable sources, appeal to authority is an informal logical fallacy so arguing that it's "always a fallacy" is sort of meaningless - i.e. it's a potentially weak argument, but it's never the same as denying the antecedent. And mincing an author's words to reach a conclusion not intended by the author is absolutely original research. I believe we should remove this last part of the lead as it stands now because it's misleading at best.

And to head off a potential concern here, any editors wanting to object to the idea of citing reliable sources is allowed, or claim that it is "logically invalid" somehow to do so should consider what authority they are citing when making that claim. - car chasm (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

To add, the whole idea that there is disagreement about "whether or not this is a fallacy" is unsupported by any reliable sources despite the number of citations. I'm removing it for now, if we determine that there really is any disagreement among reliable sources, and not that reliable sources are simply saying different things in different contexts, I think that can be re-added on the basis of what is represented in reliable sources. - car chasm (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through the article to remove any original research, and ended up stubbing it. I think perhaps it's best to just start over, working from reliable sources. any discussion of relative merits should probably wait until we have support from any sources at all. - car chasm (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Those edits are, frankly, disruptive. Let's start small with what you said in the edit summary: "remove POV pushing from article, carl sagan is not a reliable source anyway". In what sense is Carl Sagan not a reliable source on the philosophy of science? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, Carl sagan is not a philosopher of science. I recommend you take a look at WP:RS and WP:V if you have trouble understanding this. - car chasm (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I've created an entry at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about this question. We will see what community input has to say. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! - car chasm (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The consensus there was that Carl Sagan is a legitimate source here, so I am going to add the section on science back in. I notice you also removed the Roots in Cognitive Bias section, I would like to discuss that one next. I have added an additional reference that notes the relationship between this type of argument and psychology. Though, it is Richard Carrier, who has some unorthodox ideas so if you like him then I hope that allows us to keep this section and if you dislike him I won't be bothered if you remove the reference to him, whichever you'd like AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@AlphabeticThing9: No, there was not a consensus there that Sagan is a reliable source for philosophy of science. The discussion there ended without consensus and with a note that if needed, the discussion would be reopened on a more appropriate noticeboard. Moreover, you reintroduced Sadler despite my explicit attempt to get you to discuss here whether he is a reliable source for the claim he was cited for and also whether he actually claimed what was asserted. I'll remind you again that when there is a contentious issue, you are supposed to attempt to reach consensus on the Talk page, per WP:DR. Are you going to abide by that policy? I'm not going to engage in edit warring. Instead, I'm going to ask you to remove the content about both Sagan and Sadler until the issues are resolved either here or on an appropriate Noticeboard discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that a very clear consensus was reached there - did even one person not previously involved say "no Sagan cannot be cited that way"? As for Sadler, again the basis for objecting to him is your own original research which just simply isn't acceptable. But to help move our discussion forward, I added another source that provides a more practical example of appeal to authority in action and talks about why it's not valid as used there. Do you like that source? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I had not previously made any statements about Sagan here, and I stated at WP:RSN that Sagan is not a reliable source for philosophy of science claims, so the answer to your question is clearly "yes." More significantly, car chasm noted in that discussion that there were two earlier discussions of this very issue at the RSN, and multiple contributors to those discussions disagreed. You failed to link to those discussions, despite that being part of the RSN instructions. Did you even read them after car chasm introduced them? Also, as I already noted, the most recent discussion ended with a note that if needed, the discussion would be reopened on a more appropriate noticeboard.

As for "I added another source":

1) That does not address whether Sadler's article is a reliable source for a claim about the philosophy of science. Again: WP:RSCONTEXT exists for a reason. His article isn't WP:RS for an article on logical fallacies, and he does not state in the article that it is always fallacious to draw on authorities. The focus of his article is science education; it was published in a science education journal, not a philosophy-related journal, and he does not cite any philosophy references for the fallacies he discusses. Although you've apparently inferred from his abbreviated treatment that it's always fallacious to appeal to authority, he doesn't imply that, and his own use of references contradicts that interpretation.

2) Your new source is an even worse source for the claim than Sadler. Anderson does not state or suggest that appeals to authority are always fallacious, and his reference to Copi contradicts your use: "The fallacy of the appeal to inappropriate authority arises when the appeal is made to parties who have no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand. ... Care must be taken in determining whose authority it is reasonable to rely on, and whose to reject." (This quote is from a more recent edition of the book.)

So I'm going to again ask that revert your edits and that you not reintroduce Sagan and Sadler until this issue is resolved either here or on an appropriate Noticeboard. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion Can you tell me what a resolution at a noticeboard would look like in your eyes, exactly? Essentially everyone who wasn't involved in editing the page already at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard said Sagan was a legitimate cite here. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I see that the discussion at WP:RSN is ongoing; my claim that it had ended was mistaken. The most recent comment was posted only a few hours ago, and it is another person who disagrees with this use of Sagan. As for what a resolution looks like, it depends on the issue; you can look through the archives for examples of different kinds of resolutions. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion I also removed the controversial word "always". Does that make it more along the lines of the way you're wanting it to be? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: I'm just going to wait for the conclusion of the sockpuppet investigation at this point, feel free to throw your weight in there if you'd like or if you feel i've missed any important details, but given the data back from those tools I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming. The offending material can be removed once the sock is banned, not really worth engaging with them directly. - car chasm (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@ - car chasm A sockpuppet investigation doesn't even make sense here. What sockpuppet account would I be using? I'm the only talking to you. It clearly says there that the checkuser verified that: "There existed no other accounts on IPs used by the non-stale account". This is just WP:FORUMSHOP and a rather crass attempt to avoid discussing the issue but just to get your way automatically. If we have a real discussion here we can build a version of the page that everybody likes. Let's WP:POLE it. Could you list out the things you find completely unacceptable about the page as it now stands? We can then find a middle ground on those issues and should then have a page that satisfies everyone. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a sockpuppet of @Perfect Orange Sphere created in violation of their block. The checkuser was not necessary to establish this. Their refusal to understand block evasion is irrelevant, their contributions may be removed once the investigation is closed out. - car chasm (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

No, removing "always" doesn't in any way address whether Sadler and Anderson are reliable sources for a philosophy claim. You are mistaken that my primary reason for objecting to Sadler "is own original research." I have given you several other reasons, all of which you've ignored. Please address them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion I wouldn't bother engaging with them anymore, the more arguing we engage in, the harder for an admin to see or anyone else to make sense of what's going on. We've given them more than enough WP:ROPE, you don't need to debunk their increasingly preposterous accusations, you're just feeding them. - car chasm (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Accusations"? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Huge Epistemic/Bias Problem with this Article

By citing various authoritative voices as the source for claims about whether authorities can be cited as evidence of the truth of a thing non-fallaciously, isn't[REDACTED] saying that "appeals to authority" are not fallacious? Shouldn't this article tacitly admit that its epistemic foundation might be entirely off base if it is to maintain the veneer of non-bias?

I get that wikipedia's entire epistemic foundation is an appeal to authority but still...

If an argument is a logical justification for a knowledge claim, Appeals to Authority are decidedly logically fallacious, especially in this article. X isn't true because Expert A claims it is true. Expert A must have a justification for believing X is true other than "I am an authority." And that Expert's belief that X is true is in no way logically contingent on it actually being true.

I'm just astounded at the circularity of "Appeals to authority aren't fallacious because an authority said they weren't." There's got to be a better way to present the argument. Maybe present the actual arguments rather than JUST the appeals to authority? That's generally the thing with appeals to authority anyway, you're supposed to reference the argument for X rather than just the fact that the authority believes X, as the argument is the thing that proves X, not the authority's belief. 2600:4040:A23F:B200:8078:F963:B5BD:DC7F (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If you look closer at the article, you will notice that it just tells you what those reliable sources say, not that it must be correct because they are authorities. So, no circular reasoning.

Independent of that, this page is for improving the article while adhering to the rules of Misplaced Pages. If you want to change the rules of Misplaced Pages, you have to go somewhere else, ind this case probably Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If you take a closer look at the article, you'll notice that the only justifications given for the claim that "appeals to authority may not be fallacious" are appeals to authorities rather than quotations of those authorities' arguments. So, yes circular reasoning.

Again, though, I understand that this is wikipedia's epistemic foundation and that's probably not going to change. But for this article it's especially important to note that knowledge that is justified by an appeal to authority is always epistemically uncertain.

To improve the article, it should be noted in the opening line that an appeal to authority does not and cannot guarantee the epistemic certainty of an argument, even if it may be used in certain cases like in law or daily life, where matters aren't decided on purely a logical basis. This point of view seems to be supported by every source in the article. Otherwise, the use of "appeal to authority" in deductive logic is confusingly conflated with the use of "appeal to authority" in pragmatic life, which no source seems to itself do.

Another option would be to expand the "overview" section, or add another, that gives the actual arguments in favor of when to use appeals to authority, rather than just asserting in a sentence that "some authorities claim that they're not fallacious." There are three large sections of this article that give actual arguments in favor of why it is fallacious which do not merely rely on arguments from authority. The article badly needs to do the same for the argument in favor of the non-fallaciousness of the appeal to authority. It's quite ridiculous the way it is presented right now.

Either that, or the logical/deductive fallacy should be moved to an entirely different page from the pragmatic/inductive usage. 2600:4040:A23F:B200:AC7A:36C0:4E8A:8E78 (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This is ultimately a false dichotomy really, we do need to cite external authorities and not perform original research due to wikipedia's content policies, but we also need to cite arguments that are actually good. There's no shortage of decent explanations for the argument from authority in actual reliable sources from academic presses, that should be convincing on their own merits to people who are concerned about some sort of circular logic. And none of them were represented on this article, which is a cause for concern - many bad, self-published or biased POV sources do not make one good one. - car chasm (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Found a much better cited version of the article from 2017

It looks like this article was in a much better state in 2017 - multiple subject matter experts worked on it at the time and provided citations to high-quality WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I've restored that version of the article, anyone who wants to argue for the state it was in earlier this week is certainly welcome to discuss, but it's hard to see how a WP:CHOPSY-sourced article is worse, and removing those citations doesn't seem like it was justified by any WP:EXTRAORDINARY circumstances. - car chasm (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind that WP:CHOPSY is just an essay. Anyone can write and publish one here, it only reflects a user's personal views. I find that essay's claim "If a scholarly claim is principally unworthy of being taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne, and/or Yale, then it amounts to sub-standard scholarship and should be never considered a reliable source for establishing facts for Misplaced Pages. Any claim which would be unequivocally ridiculed at those universities cannot establish facts for Misplaced Pages" to be extremely problematic. It's suggestive of a radically Westrocentric worldview in that is directly says "these Western elite universities are the final and fundamental arbiters of reliability". It discounts the entirely of all, for instance, of the modern vibrant African academia. There is a very specific subculture at those places, and as this very article discusses such subcultures are extremely vulnerable to groupthink which has, can, and does lead to errors being reinforced. That essay's thinking fits better with Encyclopedia Britannica and seems to fundamentally contradict the philosophy behind a project like Misplaced Pages. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Science section

I saw this work its way through RSN. I'm not overly concerned about the use of Sagan, as the section as a whole has major issues. Having been reverted I'm bringing it here.

My main two concerns are the two examples - which take up the vast majority of the section - and the opening line. I'll start with the examples:

Example 1: Painter's chromosone count. Having been thorugh the provided references, there is little that seems to suggest that this is connected to the argument from authourity. The case seems to be that when Painter published his counts of the chromosones the technology was not good enough to validate or invalidate his figures, so given that people couldn't be sure either way they went with Painter's number. Then in 1956 new technology was developed that allowed an accurate count, the new figure was published, everyone rapidly accepted the new count, and the science moved rapidly forward. I'm not seeing any value in this as an example or argument from authority given that it was not possible to get an accurate count to prove or disprove Painter, and as soon as it was his count was dropped.

Example 2: "When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality". Only one source is used, , and it does not discuss the example in terms of the argument from authority. The article is mostly about the detective work in showing that the data was falsified. As soon as it was shown that the data was false, the paper was retracted. I'm not seeing any significant relevance here, especially to the extent that it warrants half the science section.

As to the opening line: "Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science." Sounds ok, but the sourcing is very poor for such a strong statement. As to the sources:

• Self published; doesn't discuss the argument from authority in any detail; mostly seems to be arguing for the value of repeatability in science.
• Unable to access, but might be good, I guess.
• Single mention in the introduction that seems possibly relevant. Published in 1882 - it seems we'd be better with a source that is less than 140 years old for such a strong statement.
• Interesting article, but I think I'd rather a paper that wasn't trying to argue that reincarnation is real.
• This is a clear statement. So that's one source.

I'm not seeing much of an argument for such a definitive statement from such limited sources and two very questionable examples. - Bilby (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Just in relation to the above, I've gone through the talk archives here and I'm finding a lot of opposition to including these examples In all cases only one editor - either directly or through socks - appears to be arguing to keep the chromosome example. A second editor has offered some support, but if we discount the socks, there's not a lot of support for including this. I'm inclined to say that the second example ("When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality") really has to go, and there's a string argument for removing the second. At this stage I'll see where it goes, but I'm leaning towards going with the prior arguments and deleting both. - Bilby (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, it has been a week without comment, so I'm working on the basis of no objections. For now I'm going to remove the "When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality" example as I think the problems with it are the most serious: undue weight based on a single source; no mention of the argument from authority; and only two possible references to the argument in the article, one of which is simply saying that one of the authors tended to try an end arguments by claiming to be senior, and the other mentions the "weight" of Green as a coauthor as only part of the reason it may have been accepted, and that in turn doesn't indicate if that "weight" was simply "he's an expert" or a more complex consideration based on knowledge of his techniques, honesty, or other. Without a source discussing this case as an example of argument from authority, I don't think we're in a position to do so based on the interpretation of a single non-academic source. - Bilby (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The second example has him saying "he would often rely on the kind of arguments where he'd basically invoke authority", and talking about his use of that argument. It was a notable enough incident to have its own page on the encyclopedia. It's just a good recently notable example there's no need to talk about "undue weight". When you say "the other mentions the "weight" of Green as a coauthor as only part of the reason it may have been accepted, and that in turn doesn't indicate if that 'weight' was simply 'he's an expert' or a more complex consideration based on knowledge of his techniques, honesty, or other" it sounds...redundant? As in "it isn't clear if it was because they thought he was an expert or they thought he was an expert". Moltenflesh (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In regard to the first statement, it simply says that he made that argument at times - not that he did in regard to this paper, not that this paper was accepted on those grounds, and not that it was convincing. Which leaves the second statement. It is a tiny but better, because it at least clearly relates to the paper in question. But ultimately half of this section is an example that is based on a single source, makes no mention of the argument from authority (meaning that it is our own interpretation that this is an example), and where the problem was not that and argument was accepted because an expert said it was true but because a co-author had fabricated data. - Bilby (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely does say that he made that argument involving this paper and clearly mentions the argument from authority. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Great, that would help a lot. Can you provide the quote where it clearly mentions the argument from authority? - Bilby (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It has been a couple of weeks, and I still can't see anywhere in the article where it clearly mentions the argument from authority. I understand that it can be interpreted that way, but we shouldn't be doing the interpretation, as we need secondary sources to do that. Without a source clearly stating that this is an example of the argument from authority, I don't think we should be using the example, so I'm removing it again. If it can be shown where it clearly mentions the argument from authority I would be happy to see it returned, although given that there is still only the one source, perhaps with a bit less emphasis. - Bilby (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It's that aspect of the scandal that's being highlighted as an example. Feel free re-write it if you think it should more strongly emphasize that part. It's not saying the scandal itself was as a whole an example of the appeal to authority, but that it formed part of it. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So you still can't provide the quote where it clearly states this is about the argument from authority? Instead of just putting it back, can you either a) provide a quote from the article that clearly states that this is about the argument from authority, rather than rely on your personal interpretation, (you did, after all, say that this existed above); or b) provide a secondary source that shows that this warrants half the section and is about the argument from authority? I keep giving you weeks to do either, and you have yet to do so. - Bilby (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It has been over a month now, and there is still no source stating that this is an example of an argument from authority. Hence the citation needed tag. Is there a source that says this? - Bilby (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

AlphabeticThing9, given that you still seem to be arguing even the citation needed tag, let's cover this again. Above you stated that the paper "clearly mentions the argument from authority". I have read the paper many times, and I've requested the quote, but I can't find where this happens. The closest thing that reads like that is a single, on-the-spot statement by a single academic, and that is it. Plus he's referring to Green, who was not responsible for the falsified data used as the basis of the study. The real problem is the fraud, and accepting a paper because of falsified data is not the same as accepting it on the basis of the argument from authority.

So then I went looking for other sources. The WSJ discusses the paper, but makes no mention of the argument from authority. It does say that the findings may have been accepted because they "flattered the ideological sensibilities of liberals", but that isn't an argument from authority. The Guardian makes no mention about an argument from authority, and only refers to falsified data; The Cut also focuses on the fake data, with coverage of why someone would be pressured to do that; and neither the Seattle Times nor the NYT mention the argument from authority, and again they focus on the fraudulent data. - Bilby (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That's because the portion where it specifically says so was deleted. It says: "when he and I really had a disagreement, he would often rely on the kind of arguments where he'd basically invoke authority, right?". I've added that back in. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't say that he used his "authority" to get the paper accepted, though, no that people accepted the claims based on his authority. Onlysthat he made that claim when asked generally, not necessarily in connection to this example. So it comes across as synth -sometimes a co-author defended his claims by saying he was an expert, combined with this paper was accepted, looks like we're saying that he defended this paper by saying he was an expert when the source doesn't make that specific connection. - Bilby (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

In regard to the second part I removed:

Much like the erroneous chromosome number taking decades to refute until microscopy made the error unmistakable, the one who would go on to debunk this paper "was consistently told by friends and advisers to keep quiet about his concerns lest he earn a reputation as a troublemaker", up until "the very last moment when multiple 'smoking guns' finally appeared", and he found that "There was almost no encouragement for him to probe the hints of weirdness he'd uncovered".

I am completely lost as to how these to claims are similar. One relates to the acceptance of an incorrect claim because the technology did not exist to convincingly refute it, while the other is about the possible repercussions for being a whistleblower in regard to fraud. The comparision does not make sense, and whistleblowing repercussions are not an aspect of the argument from authority. - Bilby (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes or no: the sentence "when he and I really had a disagreement, he would often rely on the kind of arguments where he'd basically invoke authority" is describing an argument from authority. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Can I assume that as you haven't disputed the point that there is no comparison to be made between Painter and whistleblowing, that it is ok to remove that? - Bilby (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC: "When contact changes minds" example

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Religion and philosophy Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the science section include the "When contact changes minds" article as an example of an Argument from Authority? Bilby (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As I've outlined above, there is no source which describes this as an example of an Argument from Authority, although multiple sources describe it as an example of faked data in research. In one account, there are claims which might suggest that there is an argument from authority involved, but the Argument from Authority is never mentioned, and those claims could equally relate to trusting the data because of the belief that one of the authors would not have faked it (he didn't - it was the second author), which is agai n about fradulent data rather than accepting based on claimed expertise. Without a source stating that this is an example of the argument I'm uncomfortable with including it based on an interpretation of a single article. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral Oppose It's not a very good example, because it's not used by other sources to illustrate the concept. Yet, It is clearly an example, because Don Green was considered an authority and many used this fact to convince themselves of the validity of the article. There is no big original research here. It's not as if a new thesis about the concept was presented. I would nevertheless suggest to find a better second example that is mentioned in sources that are specifically about this kind of arguments. In other words, if they are available, it's better to use the same examples as those used by the sources on the subject instead of creating our own examples, no matter how good they might seem to us. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Note added: I changed to oppose, because there might be some original research here, which is why it's better to use examples from sources. Moreover, in this case, because it is polemic and different sources have different views, it is important to have a source on the subject for the example, because it must be attributed to these sources. Yes, it is an example of argument by authority, but the tone in the article is that it was fallacious, but when I read sources on the subject, some of these sources would say it was NOT fallacious. The premise that the authority did a good job was wrong, but the argument by authority itself would not be considered wrong by these sources. So, we need to have sources on the subject for the example and attribute to them the use of the example. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support It says "when he and I really had a disagreement, he would often rely on the kind of arguments where he'd basically invoke authority, right? He's the one with advanced training, and his adviser is this very high-powered, very experienced person...and they know a lot more than we do". What exactly would be a clearer example of an argument from authority? AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  That would be great, if it refered to this example. No where in the article does it say that it does. - Bilby (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Bilby. The source currently cited in the article doesn't support most of the claims the article makes about this study. The "he’d basically invoke authority" quote seems to be about unspecified decisions regarding canvassing, and doesn't support the claim in the article that concerns about were ignored in many cases due to appeals to authority. We should only use this as an example if RSes specifically mention it as an example of argument from authority – otherwise this is original research. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose. Based on a misunderstanding of what an argument from authority is about. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class logic articles
• Mid-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment