Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:58, 1 February 2016

Philosophy: Logic Start‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-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

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

There is a request, submitted by Perfect Orange Sphere (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "An important and often discussed but somewhat complex subject - auditory learners might benefit from a spoken overview".

Article not reflecting its sources

In all of the sources I have been able to check which are used to define this term (as well as a wide variety of other reliable sources not cited in the article), it is specified that no informal fallacy is committed when the authority in question is a legitimate authority on the subject in question. Yet the only place this information appears in this article is in the notes for the sources 2 and 3. Is there a good reason for this? If not, both the lead and several places throughout the article need to be edited to accurately reflect this, and I will do so shortly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Look at all the examples of the appeal. They were all to what would be called legitimate authorities, but wound up being fallacious because the authorities were wrong. The appeal to authority is right when its right but wrong when its wrong, so its like circular reasoning or an ad hominem: it doesn't actually provide any evidence for the claim. Plenty of sources on the page state this, and discuss why each form of the argument listed is fallacious. Appeals to authority wind up being circular reasoning, like the page says. The issue is that while its not automatically wrong to appeal to authorities, it doesn't actually provide evidence that your claim is correct. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

My point is that it's not an informal fallacy unless the authority appealed to is not a legitimate authority. Just because an argument is wrong doesn't make it a fallacy. There's a difference between validity and soundness. Valid arguments can be unsound, and invalid arguments may have sound conclusions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't most any use of it fall under one of the forms in the article? Each one has sources and a sourced example or argument for why its fallacious FL or Atlanta (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, most uses of "authority X says Y, so Y must be true" would fall under the examples given. But that's not an overwhelming majority. For instance "Over 99% of all biologists agree that evolution is a fact, therefore evolution is almost certainly a fact," is not an informal fallacy. All of science and education is based upon the assumption that experts are correct more often than not, and all of the technology we have, as well as the skill gap between experts and non-experts in every possible set of skills stands as evidence that this assumption is correct. It's even logically sound to argue that learning about a subject grants more knowledge about a subject. After all, no-one attends college only to find that they're expected to teach themselves all of mathematics, history, literature, composition and the sciences through trial-and-error, with no reference material. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That falls under "General". Its no different from the old argument that most medical scientists believed the fevers were caused by an environmental factor, therefore it was concluded that was almost certainly a fact. The only evidence is the evidence. If the authorities believe what they do based off of evidence, then that evidence is where any authority would really be. If they don't believe what they do because of evidence, then their beliefs are not evidence based and thus carry no weight. To say otherwise has lead to circular reasoning in the past, with, as the article says, very severe consequences. FL or Atlanta (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You're debating the definition, which isn't in question. The definition is clearly given by the sources, which do not match the article. My question was why the article does not reflect its sources. If there is no reason other than the philosophical musings of Wikipedians, then it needs to change. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Allow me to quote the second source: "Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument." Where in the article is this even hinted at? Because I find find numerous passages in the article which directly contradict this. The examples chosen even seem to be hand-picked to refute this. That is not how WP is supposed to work. Also, check out the blatant irony of source #9. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The second source was recently added, and it looks like there was a lot of contention over it. We can remove it to make the page consistent - it doesn't look particularly reliable since its just a random website about logical fallacies. Aside from that the page looks consistent to me - it cites sources for the fallacy and gives evidence and examples. The quote the article ends with really hits home why its a fallacy and what leads to it. Also, do you disagree with what I said: "If the authorities believe what they do based off of evidence, then that evidence is where any authority would really be. If they don't believe what they do because of evidence, then their beliefs are not evidence based and thus carry no weight"? If you do disagree, why? And if you agree, then what basis is there for saying it isn't a fallacy? FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, contrary to the claim that "All of science and education is based upon the assumption that experts are correct more often than not", we have reliable sources like http://www.nomads.usp.br/pesquisas/design/objetos_interativos/arquivos/restrito/umpleby_science_cybernetics.pdf presented at the conference on Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and Science. Its a scholarly work on the history and philosophy of science and it notes that "Scientific statements can be falsified, non-scientific statements cannot be. This idea, and the previous idea of verification through resort to experiment, has had a beneficent effect on social systems. Through the idea of experimentation, science became a means of establishing knowledge other than by coercion or arguments based on appeals to authority, faith, or supernaturalism. This idea liberated the scientific community...". If appeals to authority were, as you're arguing, the cornerstone of science, then why do we have scholars of the philosophy of science describing going away from appeals to authority as "beneficial" and a "liberation"? FL or Atlanta (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you missed the irony of appealing to an authority to refute my contention that appealing to authorities is a valid method of argument. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing number 9 because it has absolutely no business in this article. Also, try the following as reliable sources:

• Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. - UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center
• Appeal to Authority:
     the authority is not an expert in the field
     experts in the field disagree
     the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious - Stephen Downes, by way of a Stanford University handout
• Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority. - Lander University Philosophy Department
• Appeal to Authority: Not always fallacious, but always something a critical thinker must consider. It is where you are asked to accept something as true based upon the word of an expert (authority). The main question is, "Are they really an expert?" Perhaps they're not an expert in that field, perhaps they've got an ax to grind, or perhaps they are being paid by someone. Foothill College
• The fallacy of irrelevant authority is committed when you accept without proper support for his or her alleged authority, a person's claim or proposition as true. Alleged authorities should only be used when the authority is reporting on his or her field of expertise, the authority is reporting on facts about which there is some agreement in his or her field, and you have reason to believe he or she can be trusted. Alleged authorities can be individuals or groups. The attempt to appeal to the majority or the masses is a form of irrelevant authority. The attempt to appeal to an elite or select group is a form of irrelevant authority. Texas State Department of Philosophy

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll talk about the other sources in a moment, but before any changes get made, citation 9 is good - he's a historian and Medieval scholar who's published on Medieval arms and armor. He makes the point in the video of how you can't simply appeal to scholars and assume its correct - you need the actual historical evidence. Videos are valid sources as long as its a reliable source. FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. He is not a reliable source for this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have read it, I’m very familiar with the guidelines. Do you disagree with any of the reasons I gave for why it’s a reliable source? Nothing said in the video is even controversial.

As far as appealing to authority to discuss appeals to authority, the irony isn’t lost on me. But the real irony is that authorities say the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, so if the appeal isn’t a fallacy then it would be proven that it’s a fallacy! Its ultimately self-defeating. But do you have any response to the meat of what I’m saying? That “If the authorities believe what they do based off of evidence, then that evidence is where any authority would really be. If they don't believe what they do because of evidence, then their beliefs are not evidence based and thus carry no weight”.

Now as far as the other sources go, it is true that some argue it isn’t a fallacy, but they are a minority among relevant philosophers. According to the book "Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science" by Christopher Hitchcock, on page 161 in my copy, it says "Of prime concern for the issue…are the rules that apply to the researchers themselves. A vocal minority effectively argue their own research transcends empiricism, stating that the public should accept their word by virtue of the fact that it came from one of their standing, and reject it only when others at their level do so. Though the ad verecundiam has such advocates, their expertise resides largely outside of the field of the philosophy of science…Philosophers of science remain in broad unanimity that it is the facts themselves that bring the proof. Those who use their position to express otherwise are…going against their own teachings by…disregarding the consensus of the field on which they speak."

So it seems like people in other professions sometimes say the appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy. But the consensus in philosophy of science, which is the most relevant specialization, is that it is indeed a fallacy. That seems to be why we get some mixed signals from some sources.

If you’d like, I could cite this section under the appeal to non-authorities form, and make a note of how its argued by some that appeals to authority are only fallacious in that particular form. Would that be an acceptable consensus? FL or Atlanta (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have read it, I’m very familiar with the guidelines. You must have missed the following parts, then:

• Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." (emphasis added) Note that youtube videos are self-published, and thus not the result of a reliable publication process. Which leads to the section on self-published sources.
• Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. (emphasis in original) A HEMA practitioner, even a well-respected one such as this one is not an established expert whose work in the field of logic or philosophy has been published by reliable third-party publications. Even by the overly broad interpretation of the subject of this article you are advocating, this is a completely improper source.

Note that both of those quotations are pulled from the Misplaced Pages policy page, not the guidelines page. Citing that source is a violation of WP policy. I am removing it again, and if you re-insert it we will take this to arbitration.

Now as far as the other sources go, it is true that some argue it isn’t a fallacy, but they are a minority among relevant philosophers. That is completely untrue. Virtually every single resource on the internet agrees that there is no fallacy in trusting the word of an established expert, with many of those resources coming from well established, reliable experts in the field. I limited the sources I provided above to educational institutes, but there are many more reliable sources available online. Even the very first source in this article mentions it. I can literally find dozens of reliable sources to state the caveat that appeals to legitimate expertise are not fallacious. You might be able to find a meager handful of sources which don't mention it, and maybe one or two that explicitly deny it. Even then, I doubt they would be very reliable.

According to the book "Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science" by Christopher Hitchcock, on page 161 in my copy, it says... That's strange. Because that passage appears nowhere in my copy, nor in the digital copy available online

So it seems like people in other professions sometimes say the appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy. I gave you multiple examples of philosophy, education and argumentation experts stating this. You gave me a false quote from a book and a martial artist's opinion.

If you’d like, I could cite this section under the appeal to non-authorities form, and make a note of how its argued by some that appeals to authority are only fallacious in that particular form. Would that be an acceptable consensus? No, because that would violate WP:UNDUE by diminishing an important caveat made by virtually every reliable source on the subject. An acceptable outcome is noting in the lead that it is not considered fallacious to rely upon legitimate expertise, and to alter the examples given so that they aren't exclusively drawn from cases where established experts were wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Like with last time, I'll address the stuff about citation 9 first. He is a published scholar, he co-wrote the book Swordsmen of the British Empire and has participated in projects translating Medieval documents on combat, according to http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/training/. That source also notes that his "formal educational background is a BA(hons) in Medieval Archaeology and History from University College London (UCL) in 2000, writing his final dissertation on the development of 13th and 14th century armour". So he is a published and credentialed historian. And, once again, what’s being said in the video isn’t controversial in the least. Also if I might ask, why are you in such a hurry to have the source removed? Talking about edit wars and arbitration and such. Isn't it better to remain calm and discuss the issue until a consensus can be reached? FL or Atlanta (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

So you're arguing that a degree in history makes one an expert in philosophy? Read below. We will deal with this through arbitration. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course not - I'm arguing it means he's a reliable source for the issue he's speaking about there. I did however move the citation to be for how authorities can fall into error, since that's a bit more like what he was speaking about. I also added the skepdic source. I think its very very early for arbitration - arbitration is a last resort, and we're making lots of progress in our discussion! The page has already improved. FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Examples of cited sources (and one cited author) flatly stating that not all appeals to authority are fallacious

For example, appealing to expert opinion could be reasonable if the field of the expert is appropriate, and other conditions are met. But, of course, as the logic texts have so often pointed out, such arguments can sometimes be fallacious appeal to authority.

— F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed, (2003) "Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence and Law: 133.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Basing a belief on what some authority says. A legitimate form of appeal to authority goes as follows:
      X holds that A is true.
      X is an authority on the subject.
      The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
      There is a presumption that A is true.
It is a fallacy if we appeal to someone who is not an authority on the subject, if the authorities widely disagree, or if we say something must be true (and is not just probably true) because authorities support it.

— Gensler, Harry J., (2010) The A to Z of Logic. Lanham, MD Scarecrow Press

Note that the preceding reference is not from the specific cited source (I don't have a copy of it), but from another book about the same subject, written by the same author at a later date.

Although appeals to authority can be erroneous, it must also be recognized that some appeals to authority can be reasonable and legitimate in argument. For example, suppose you have a toothache and you go to your dentist for advice. He replies as follows.

Example 7.0This tooth is badly decayed, but not beyond repair. I propose to replace the decayed portion with a filling immediately.

Your dentist's advice in example 7.0 is the judgement of a suitably qualified expert in his field. In asking for his or her advice, therefore, you have appealed to an expert authority. However, it by no means follows that by acquiescing to his proposals you have committed a fallacy.

— Walton, Douglas, (2008) Informal Logic. London: Cambridge University Press

"For example, appealing to expert opinion could be reasonable if the field of the expert is appropriate, and other conditions are met. But, of course, as the logic texts have so often pointed out, such arguments can sometimes be fallacious appeal to authority."

And the question is: what other conditions must be met, and when it is sometimes fallacious?

The other conditions are that the opinion is backed up by evidence, and it is fallacious when the opinion itself is taken as the evidence.

"It is a fallacy if we appeal to someone who is not an authority on the subject, if the authorities widely disagree, or if we say something must be true (and is not just probably true) because authorities support it."

This source disagrees with all the others we’re seeing, makes no sense in light of the examples and arguments on the page, and it effectively contradicts itself. What is the real, practical difference between saying “if X then we must believe this is true” and saying “if X then we must assume this is true”?

He’s saying if these conditions arise, then you should automatically believe it. Yet he’s also saying its fallacious to say that if these conditions arise, then it is automatically true. What sense does that make? Its very bizarre and not what most philosophers would say.

"Although appeals to authority can be erroneous, it must also be recognized that some appeals to authority can be reasonable and legitimate in argument. For example, suppose you have a toothache and you go to your dentist for advice."

In what way is that “in argument”? If you challenge the dentist’s conclusion, then wouldn’t they show you the images of your rotten teeth that lead them to their belief they need to be fixed? Doctors almost always give the patients their test results, and I believe they’re required by law in many places to do so if you request it. Its that test that’s the evidence for your diagnosis. The doctor doesn’t magically form an opinion before he even sees you, it comes from evidence – whether that be something like the symptoms you describe or the results of the tests performed.

Also my apologies on my source, I extracted that from a discussion I had on this sort of topic with someone else and got my references jumbled. The proper reference is The Structure and Development of Science, edited by Gerard Radnitzsky. FL or Atlanta (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Essentially, all I am saying is what http://skepdic.com/authorty.html says: "The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief". FL or Atlanta (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I will file a request for arbitration after the weekend and we will let a volunteer from the arbitration committee help us reach a consensus. I have provided irrefutable evidence that the sources cited within this article all state a fact which is not reflected in this article. I have provided irrefutable evidence that numerous other reliable sources all state this same fact. You have demonstrated no willingness to concede even the most minor points, and I have no wish to turn this talk page into 6 megabytes of arguments about whether you, or literally every reliable expert we've referenced is correct. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually think we're having wonderful discussions and that this is going very well and the article is improving. I really think we're doing a good job working towards a consensus rather than having some sort of adversarial thing. But if you don't feel that way, wouldn't mediation be a better route? Arbitration is a last-resort when all else fails. Mediation is perfect for discussions like this that simply could use some extra input.

As far as the sources go, what I think might be going on is a misunderstanding. Based on your comments on my Talk page, you seem to be meaning "authority" in the general sense of "credence" (like with the mechanic or alarm clock) - that any appeal to a thing's credence is fallacious is false, I'd agree! All I'm saying is what the Skepdic source says: that "The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief" . Does that help clear things up at all? FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the page is misleading. It says that the argument from authority leads to a logical fallacy. "Logical" fallacies are typically understood to refer to formal fallacies (eg the wiki page for "logical fallacy" is redirected to the page for "formal fallacy.)" However, the argument from authority is an informal, not formal fallacy (see the wiki list of fallacies or logic textbooks).Original Position (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the page is downright and flatly wrong. It conflates the inductive processes of science with formal deductive logic and the three citations listed are B grade at best. It is a clear and overt attack on the validity of and respect for science, and it cannot stand as it is. Bjchip (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://skepdic.com/authorty.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Formal_fallacy

section break for ease of editing

@Original Position: Thank you. I was truly beginning to think I was the only person here who understands the subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@FL or Atlanta: I'm quoting you out of order so as to provide a clear structure for my response.

All I'm saying is what the Skepdic source says: that "The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief" You've left out the very first sentence of that definition, which is indisputably the most important with regards to our discussion "The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority." (emphasis added). In fact, I am saying what the Skepdic source says, and you are arguing against it. Your argument is, quite literally, that the portions of all of the sources which disagree with your assertion should not be reflected in the article, because of the way you interpret other passages in those sources. That's not how WP is supposed to work, in fact that is a form of Original Research, which is explicitly banned by WP policy.

I actually think we're having wonderful discussions and that this is going very well and the article is improving. You've removed a reliable source because you disagreed with what it said, you've insisted upon keeping a source that does not meet WP's guidelines for reliable sources (which make it explicitly clear that the person need be an expert in the same subject as the article, not in a different subject), you've misquoted a source, you've added a source that constitutes original research in the context it's used in, you have consistently refused to debate the specific points I've raised, instead relying on debating the very meaning of the term (which would make the article itself guilty of being composed of original research if I step back and let you have your way), you've cherry picked sources, you've used the very tactic you are arguing to be invalid to make your case, and you have yet to concede even the most empirically demonstrable point: namely that the caveat I am arguing for does in fact appear in virtually every reliable source possible for this article.

Put yourself in my position for a moment. What would you do if you were clearly and demonstrably correct (it is a fact that virtually every source states this caveat, it is a fact that the article does not, and it is a fact that you have implicitly ceded that truth by engaging in that very form of logic yourself), yet another user insisted upon arguing with you every step of the way? What choice do I have, other than to get others involved to 'drown you out', so to speak? You clearly have not been swayed in the slightest by reasonable discussion, despite me making my case not just convincingly, but factually. You may think we're getting somewhere, but we aren't. The article is demonstrably worse by WP's objective standards now than it was when I first posted to this talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

“The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority”

Well of course - no one disagrees with that. Clearly an appeal to authority isn’t valid if its not even an authority to begin with. This form gets a lot of attention since its arguably the most common - "Mr. X is smart when it comes to Y, so listen to what he has to say about Z!". You see it everyday in advertisements and hear it a lot in discussions.

That is one form of it the page discusses, an appeal to non-authorities. I can add some more about this on the page under the appropriate form! Would giving more weight to that make the page more agreeable to you? You are right that this is an important aspect the page doesn't discuss enough.

However, that’s just one aspect of the appeal. Ultimately, since “The truth or falsity, reasonableness or unreasonableness, of a belief must stand independently of those who accept or reject the belief”, any appeal to authority rather than evidence will be fallacious.

Like it says, the only time it would make sense is on an issue you know nothing about, when you can presume that whoever you’re quoting “believe it because there is strong evidence in support of it”.

But that would be a fallacy in scientific or argumentative reasoning (which is what the page specifies), because it also fails if “the subject is controversial”. If there is an argument about an issue, then it is by definition controversial.

The appeal to authority is something you might use as a crutch, but it can never be a pillar in of itself, if that makes sense.

“Your argument is, quite literally, that the portions of all of the sources which disagree with your assertion should not be reflected in the article”

My argument is that the sources say what I’m saying, which we’ve seen is the case so far in each instance.

“You've removed a reliable source because you disagreed with what it said”

When was that?

“which make it explicitly clear that the person need be an expert in the same subject as the article”

A thing needs to be a reliable source for the fact its being cited for. If the fact is relevant and helpful, and the source is reliable for it, then the source is relevant and helpful.

“you've misquoted a source”

Which was an accident, and which was corrected by another editor. That’s why no Misplaced Pages article can be a one man show: everything needs to be checked.

“you have consistently refused to debate the specific points I've raised”

If there’s something I haven’t addressed, it wasn’t intentional – I always try to address all the points that get made. If I do miss something please tell me, it’s a genuine oversight rather than a refusal.

”You clearly have not been swayed in the slightest by reasonable discussion, despite me making my case not just convincingly, but factually.”

How can I be convinced if you end discussions early out of impatience or frustration? Like on my Talk for example. --> FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This is pointless. I'm opening a case for mediation. You don't seem to care one bit about being right or wrong, only about winning the argument. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say its pointless at all! I just gave more weight to the issue you pointed out. That is an aspect that needed - and still needs, I'd say - more coverage on the page. I'd be happy to participate in mediation if you want, but personally I don't think there's even really a disagreement that needs mediating - the page is progressing! Slowly, but its good to take care with edits. Always better if they grow slow and strong like a tree, rather than being like a cheap shack that keeps getting pieces stuck on and torn off and modified with abandon.

Also I may be gone for a few days coming up - I should be here tomorrow but might be gone for about a week after Thursday. FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Use in logic section

I deleted the "Use in logic" section because it incorrectly claimed that the argument from authority was a formal fallacy. It said this: "It is fallacious to use any appeal to authority in the context of logical reasoning. Because the argument from authority is not a logical argument in that it does not argue something's negation or affirmation constitutes a contradiction, it is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true."

However, this is incorrect. It is true that in a formally valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. However, it is not a requirement of a formally valid argument that the premises be true. Thus it is trivially easy to create formally valid arguments from authority. For instance:

1) If Professor Moriarty claims the theory of evolution is false, then the theory of evolution is false. 2) Professor Moriarty claims the theory of evolution is false. 3) Therefore, the theory of evolution is false.

This is a formally valid argument (modus ponens) that argues on the basis of Professor Moriarty's authority that the theory of evolution is false. Now, doubtless we might think that (1) is false. But that doesn't matter. A formally valid argument can have false premises.Original Position (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm new to editing wiki, so I'll make some mistakes I guess. I'll go through this line by line.

It is fallacious to use any appeal to authority in the context of logical reasoning.

No citation here, and this is false. If by "logical reasoning" we mean deductive arguments only, then as I demonstrated above, it is indeed possible to construct deductively valid appeals to authority. If by "logical reasoning" we are also including abductive and inductive arguments, then as argued in talk above, appealing to appropriate authority is not considered fallacious by experts.

Because the argument from authority is not a logical argument in that it does not argue something's negation or affirmation constitutes a contradiction, it is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.

This is not particularly clear, and nowhere in the cited source does it say this (I looked at the Gensler textbook and the pages cited just don't make this claim. The section is on the practical construction of arguments, not on arguments from authority and so doesn't say that these arguments if negated wouldn't be contradictory.

Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur as the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.

Harder to tell what the citation is here. One is a reference to a collection of essays on logic from the 1880's, but with no page cited. I searched the book for any occurrence of either "authority" or "verecundiam" and found none. I can't find a copy of the other book online, but again, we don't have a page citation here, and due to the sloppy citation in the rest of this section, I'm not confident that this is a correct interpretation.

However, again, I'll point out that the claim being made here, that arguments from authority can't be deductively valid is false. I proved this in my first note on why I deleted this section. So, to sum up, this section nowhere cites any discussion of the argument from authority. Instead, it cites some general textbooks on the nature of logical arguments. The actual statements on the nature of logical arguments are unnecessarily jargon-laden and unclear. Then, these statements, purely on the editors own authority, are claimed to somehow be inconsistent with arguments from authority. This is not demonstrated or cited. So the section should be removed.Original Position (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

While I am otherwise in agreement with you, I must point out that appeals to authority are not sound in a deductive argument, because a sound deductive argument is one in which the premises are true (and -of course- the conclusions is certain).

However, (and this is the crux of my argument above), appeals to authority are inductively and abductively valid, when the authority being cited is an expert in the field in question. I don't think the section you removed (which has since been restored) needs to go, but I agree wholeheartedly that the lead needs to be changed to more accurately reflect the sources, and the section on formal logic needs to be re-written to better reflect the sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Soundness is not the correct standard to use in evaluating fallacies in deductive logic. There we are strictly concerned with formal fallacies, which are about validity rather than soundness. It is of course true that a valid deductive argument can be unsound, or can even exhibit an informal fallacy, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is deductively valid. I think this section is misleading and should be deleted because it is clearly meant to refer to deductive logic (i.e. formal fallacies), but the appeal to inappropriate authority fallacy is an informal fallacy. It is factually false in claiming that it is always fallacious to appeal authority in a deductive argument. Original Position (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. Not being a philosopher myself, I sometimes misuse terms and concepts. I agree with what you are saying completely, excepting that I believe if the lead of the article were better, then that section could remain, with an extensive re-write (which I attempted, but was reverted on). Might I ask that you weight in at the AN/I post and dredge up some sources from any reputable material you may have access to? It would go a long way towards correcting this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-Gensler/dp/0415226759/ref=pd_sim_sbs_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=410LeI2DTEL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&refRID=0VERK58WY7Q7J1DV4QZV

Mediation - Dispute Resolution

Hey guys! I'll be the mediator on this page. We've already met on the DRN, so I wanted to get a discussion going. I think an important issue to establish here is: what do you each see as being the scope of this article? TheLogician112 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@TheLogician112: I've already responded on the DRN page. I could transcribe that here, if you would prefer to continue it on this page. (I think that might be a better idea, as it frees all parties from having to watch the DRN and check every edit to see if someone responded just before that). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources explicitly saying it is a fallacy

The literature clearly and repeatedly states this sort of argument is a fallacy. One example I recently added to the page says: "Common Fallacies to Avoid in Argumentation" and then lists "Appeal to authority" and says it is done when "Using an authority figure as the primary means of supporting an argument". How much more clear and explicit could it get? There's no need for anyone to discuss it on and on. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a source which uses the term in a generalized sense to decry one specific example under a specific set of highly formal circumstances. Let's take a look at sources which directly address the question of defining the appeal to authority, shall we?

For example, appealing to expert opinion could be reasonable if the field of the expert is appropriate, and other conditions are met. But, of course, as the logic texts have so often pointed out, such arguments can sometimes be fallacious appeal to authority.

F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed (2003) "Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence and Law: 133.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Basing a belief on what some authority says. A legitimate form of appeal to authority goes as follows:

X holds that A is true.

X is an authority on the subject.

The consensus of authorities agrees with X.

There is a presumption that A is true.

It is a fallacy if we appeal to someone who is not an authority on the subject, if the authorities widely disagree, or if we say something must be true (and is not just probably true) because authorities support it.

Gensler, Harry J. (2010) The A to Z of Logic. Lanham, MD Scarecrow Press

Appeal to Authority: Not always fallacious, but always something a critical thinker must consider. It is where you are asked to accept something as true based upon the word of an expert (authority). The main question is, "Are they really an expert?" Perhaps they're not an expert in that field, perhaps they've got an ax to grind, or perhaps they are being paid by someone.

Foothill College

Although appeals to authority can be erroneous, it must also be recognized that some appeals to authority can be reasonable and legitimate in argument. For example, suppose you have a toothache and you go to your dentist for advice. He replies as follows.

This tooth is badly decayed, but not beyond repair. I propose to replace the decayed portion with a filling immediately.

Your dentist's advice in is the judgement of a suitably qualified expert in his field. In asking for his or her advice, therefore, you have appealed to an expert authority. However, it by no means follows that by acquiescing to his proposals you have committed a fallacy.

Walton, Douglas (2008) Informal Logic. London: Cambridge University Press

The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority.

...

Finally, it should be noted that it is not irrelevant to cite an authority to support a claim one is not competent to judge. However, in such cases the authority must be speaking in his or her own field of expertise and the claim should be one that other experts in the field do not generally consider to be controversial. In a field such as physics, it is reasonable to believe a claim about something in physics made by a physicist that most other physicists consider to be true. Presumably, they believe it because there is strong evidence in support of it. Such beliefs could turn out to be false, of course, but it should be obvious that no belief becomes true on the basis of who believes it.

The Skeptic's Dictionary - appeal to authority

Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY — argumentum ad verecundiam

Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center

Appeal to Authority:

the authority is not an expert in the field

experts in the field disagree

the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious

Stephen Downes, by way of a Stanford University handout

The fallacy of irrelevant authority is committed when you accept without proper support for his or her alleged authority, a person's claim or proposition as true. Alleged authorities should only be used when the authority is reporting on his or her field of expertise, the authority is reporting on facts about which there is some agreement in his or her field, and you have reason to believe he or she can be trusted. Alleged authorities can be individuals or groups. The attempt to appeal to the majority or the masses is a form of irrelevant authority. The attempt to appeal to an elite or select group is a form of irrelevant authority.

Texas State Department of Philosophy

Well, there's nine sources, all directly addressing the question of what an appeal to authority is (or in one case, what a fallacious appeal to authority is) which all state that it is sometimes valid. Some of them are in the article already. One is from FL or Atlanta. You are wrong. It is not always a fallacy. It's worth pointing out yet again that when you bring in any source to support your position you are appealing to an authority. This makes your own argument nothing but a fallacy, by your own admission. Why should anyone listen to someone who's arguing that they're wrong? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Aren't these already addressed elsewhere? Skepdic certainly isn't in favor of appeals as general arguments. Your last source says it should only be when "you have reason to believe he or she can be trusted", when it has "proper support", etc. As the sources (including one I just added) on the page talk about, unless that reason and support is independent evidence, you have no non-circular basis for appealing to the authority. Can someone who's wrong be an authority you should presume to be right? Also the sources are necessary because of WP:VNT. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

How about a few more, then?

We all rely on the advice and counsel of others. Sometimes when we present arguments, we appeal to what experts have said on the matter instead of presenting direct evidence to support the claims that we make. Critical thinking allows for this, for it would be difficult and wasteful to always repeat arguments already made by experts. Thus, many arguments that appeal to some legitimate authority can be construed as strong inductive arguments.

...

...many arguments that appeal to a legitimate authority are strong inductive arguments...

Salmon, Merrilee Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (2012) Cengage Learning

What is wrong with arguing from authority? The short answer is, nothing – if the authority is a good one (for the conclusion in question). The reason why arguing from authority as such is sometimes classified as a fallacy is that it is not distinguished from arguing merely from putative authority.

...

Paying too much attention to the latter kind of case, that of the deliberate, sophistical use of false authority to persuade an opponent, is one thing that leads to the traditional view that arguments from authority are always fallacious. Another is focussing on the case where an arguer (perhaps a solitary one) is indeed convinced of the genuineness and relevance of the authority to which she is appealing but is, in our view, mistaken in that conviction. Each of these pictures of argument from authority mistakes one species of such argument for the genus and, having done so, is unable to account for the obvious fact that we regard some arguments from authority as perfectly good arguments and are right in doing so. In this way they fail to save the phenomena and fail to provide an explanation of them.

Bire, John & Siegel, Harvey "Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies" Argumentation August 1997, Volume 11, Issue 3 pp277-292

Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority."

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Fallacies

"...many of our trusted beliefs ... rest quite properly on the say so of others..."

Gensler, Harry Introduction to Logic (2012) Routledge

Are you contending that these sources are all incorrect? Can you debate it using some evidence other than the sources you quoted? Can you explain why I or anyone else should believe you, when your argument is that your argument is a fallacy? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 07:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

All the first really says is "Hey! It's tough to argue for yourself – so just assume someone else got it right and trust them". The questionableness of that reasoning aside, it's not even an independent argument at that point, it's more of a token that stands for the arguments the authorities are actually making. So the basis of the authority goes back to those arguments – to the evidence. The second source admits that it is "the traditional view that arguments from authority are always fallacious". Wouldn’t that mean, by definition, that the force of most authorities is that it's always fallacious? The third source describes a type of the fallacy the page already discusses. The fourth isn't even talking about an argument. You're simply not listening to me with the "your argument is that you’re wrong" stuff. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Going along with what your second source said, a new editor brought up http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html. That also says "Although many logicians today use the Latin phrase “argumentum ad verecundiam” (or often, more simply, the phrase “ad verecundiam”) as the name of a fallacy....historically those phrases were used for appealing to any authority, relevant or otherwise, as evidence in an argument and were not used specifically to denote the fallacy of appealing to evidence provided by an irrelevant or ill-suited authority." So the sources we're seeing agree that the consensus view, historically, has been that this is fallacious reasoning. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

All the first really says is... So you are contending that your own interpretation overrides what is explicitly stated in every reliable source which defines the term?

Going along with what your second source said, a new editor brought up http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html. Ahh yes, the one which says "an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside the authority's special field of expertise." after making it explicitly clear that they are defining only the fallacious use of the argument in the opening.

That also says "Although many logicians today use the Latin phrase “argumentum ad verecundiam” (or often, more simply, the phrase “ad verecundiam”) as the name of a fallacy....historically those phrases were used for appealing to any authority, relevant or otherwise, as evidence in an argument and were not used specifically to denote the fallacy of appealing to evidence provided by an irrelevant or ill-suited authority." So the sources we're seeing agree that the consensus view, historically, has been that this is fallacious reasoning. Wait a second... You just quoted the source saying that the phrase historically means any appeal to authority, yet you take that to mean that, historically, the phrase refers only to the fallacy? Did you even bother to read the quote before you copied and pasted it? The quote explains exactly what you don't seem to get: namely that in modern discourse, the term is sometimes used to refer to the argument (which may or may not be a fallacy), and sometimes used to refer to only the fallacies.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to give me even one reason why I should believe you when you continue to argue that your argument is untrustworthy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

We've already seen a source saying that it has traditionally been considered a fallacy, that reference just supports it. Its not a matter of my interpretations but of the ambiguity of how we'd use that source for the page. Why do you keep talking about how "every source" says its not a fallacy when we have multiple on the page that do just that, including with a direct quote? And I already have addressed what you're saying about me supposedly being contradictory. Per WP:VNT it doesn't matter so much what's true, it matters what the sources say. So I could give evidence and arguments for why this is a fallacy, but it would be irrelevant. All that matters is what the sources say. Like how http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4/fulltext.html outright and directly says, as "Common Fallacies to Avoid in Argumentation", one of them is "Appeal to authority", which is done when "Using an authority figure as the primary means of supporting an argument". Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Further, http://www.geol.utas.edu.au/geography/EIANZ/Ignorance_is_contagious_%28July_2008%29.pdf says the argument from authority fallacy is "Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true", and says it is fallacious because "the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it". Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that appeals to authority can sometimes be fallacious. The question is whether it is always fallacious. Neither of the sources you cite really address this. They both talk generally about how and why an appeal to authority can be fallacious, but neither of them definitively state that they are always fallacious.

However, even if they did, this is not how you cite sources. If you want to know the answer to a question, you look at the most authoritative sources for the answer. In this case, textbooks, articles written by experts on the subject, and good encyclopedia articles can suffice. Here you instead seem to be looking only for sources that agree with your own view, which is why you are citing articles in obscure journal or online sources, written by non-experts, and on subjects other than the one under discussion.

The irony here is getting a little thick. You actually are engaged in an appeal to inappropriate authority here, by citing education professors and environmental scientists on a logic question. The correct, non-fallacious appeal to authority in this case would be to appeal to the appropriate authorities on the nature of argumentation, such as logicians or philosophers who have studied this specific topic. Original Position (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Perfect Orange Sphere: Please read this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a very busy admin who obviously hadn't read all the relevant discussions, as can be seen with the clear misunderstanding about the video, what it was being used for, and what you said about it above. I rectified those concerns by making it clearer what it is being used as a citation for.

Also, the argument from authority as you're trying to say it should be used would be deductive reasoning. Your reasoning is "All things an authority says should be assumed to be true. Authorities A say B. Therefore B should be assumed to be true". Is that not deductive reasoning? You wouldn't let any evidence sway you, since you'd appeal to the authority. For all practical intents and purposes, you would be holding B as something logically certain. Even sources that are somewhat in favor of appeals to authority don't treat them like the iron-clad, end-all-be-alls that everyone must presume to be true that you see them as. We have enough reliable sources showing failed appeals to authority or authorities that turned out to be unreliable or outright saying appeals to authorities are fallacious to leave no room for anyone to reasonably argue we should presume an argument from authority means something is correct. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confused about the nature of deductive arguments and their relation to certainty (hint: the conclusion of a valid deductive argument is only as certain as its premises), but that is a side-issue. The main question I would like you to answer: Is it possible to make an argument from authority in a non-fallacious manner? If not, then why do so many logic textbooks and other sources say it is possible? Shouldn't we then at minimum revise the article so that it tells the reader that many experts think it is possible? If so, then shouldn't we revise, or allow revisions, to the article to make this clear? Original Position (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree a good consensus version would be to note that there are a minority of philosophers and the like who argue its only fallacious in certain circumstances. As we've seen so far, sources directly state the traditional and prevailing view is that the appeal is a fallacy - but would a version of the page that discusses the views of that minority be an acceptable version to end the disputes? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable consensus version. The view that there are non-fallacious arguments from authority is not a minority view among philosophers. It is the established consensus of the field, as demonstrated by the fact that the major contemporary logic textbooks make this point explicit (please let me know if you find one that is different). It is also not correct to say that it was traditional to claim that it was always a fallacy. I would suggest you look at the historical background chapter of Walton's Appeal to Expert Opinion (it's at Amazon). There he notes that it has only been regarded as a fallacy within the last few hundred years, while previously it was an accepted part of argumentation. Even since then, major philosophers such as Locke and Bentham in their discussions of this argument have not treated it as always fallacious. Anyway, the main point is that it is now widely acknowledged to not always be fallacious.

Look, it is obviously your view that the argument from authority is always fallacious. That's fine, believe what you want. But if you want the encyclopedia to reflect this view then you need to produce expert sources writing on the argument from authority that explicitly say this. Not just people who refer to the argument from authority as a fallacy, but who in discussions of this argument claim that it is always fallacious. I've looked through this Talk page and you have not yet done this. Original Position (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a very busy admin who...Fine. I'm trying to help you avoid sanctions by making sure you understand what you're getting into. If you want to ignore me, you have every right.

Your reasoning is "All things an authority says should be assumed to be true. Authorities A say B. Therefore B should be assumed to be true".First, that's not my reasoning. Second, that's not my reasoning. The argument -as it has been explained multiple times- is; "Experts are more likely to be correct about their field of expertise than non-experts. Expert A says B about subject X. Expert A's field of study is X. B is not a contentious claim. Therefore B is likely true." Notice the use of explicit qualifiers and premises. This is the general form as it is given by every authoritative source on the subject, so it is nothing I came up with.

You wouldn't let any evidence sway you, since you'd appeal to the authority.There is NO part of that structure which says anything about ignoring evidence. At no point has anyone even implied that authority trumps evidence. It is extremely dishonest of you to suggest it.

For all practical intents and purposes, you would be holding B as something logically certain Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: The Non sequitur. To say "X is likely true" is a world apart from saying "X is logically certain."

We have enough reliable sources showing failed appeals to authority or authorities that turned out to be unreliable or outright saying appeals to authorities are fallacious to leave no room for anyone to reasonably argue we should presume an argument from authority means something is correct. I'm going to ask you a question, and it's going to sound insulting, but it's not an insult, it's a rhetorical device.

Do you know how to count? You know, 1... 2... 3...

The reason I ask is because your argument literally presumes that you don't. I've shown you 14 definitive sources which define the term as a form of argument that is sometimes fallacious. You've presented 2 non-definitive (also, non-expert so by every standard espoused here, your citing of them is a fallacy) sources that use the phrase to refer to the fallacious form of the argument. You are (in more ways than one, as pointed out by both I and Original) arguing that you're wrong. Besides which, this statement explicitly constitutes synthesis, which runs against WP policy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If I may, allow me to do something similar: "I'm going to ask you a question, and it's going to sound insulting, but it's not an insult". Would you be willing to let Original Position be the one who does the advocacy for your side and maybe take a back seat for awhile? He makes truly constructive edits like identifying incorrect sources in one of the sections and building consensuses like with him and the IP. I really think this would all go much better with him as the main one involved.

Anyway, the problem is, saying "if an argument from authority supports X, there is a presumption X is true" is, for every practical intent and purpose, saying it must be believed. What is the difference between saying that and "if an argument from authority supports X, then X is true"? In practical terms, absolutely nothing.

As for how it trumps evidence, let me ask: is there any belief you hold that you hold in spite of the prevailing view of authorities on the subject because you were convinced by evidence? If so, what is it?

I've already addressed multiple of your sources, many of them just focus on the most common form the fallacy is encountered in. How are the sources cited non-expert? They're journal and university publications. What you're really saying is that someone who disagrees with your position isn't an expert. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you be willing to let Original Position be the one who does the advocacy for your side and maybe take a back seat for awhile?No. I have invested time and energy in this article, in an attempt to improve it. I do not intend (and should not be asked) to excuse myself from a discussion simply because you disagree with me. As it stands, even with all the improvements OP has made to it, it is not at all accurate. I do not intend to accede to any demand that I allow one new, not particularly active user shoulder the entire burden of correcting this article. It is not fair to him, nor is it fair to me. You may prefer it, but to be perfectly honest, I would prefer if you would do the same. I'm not asking you to because I have enough respect not to ask you something like that.

Anyway, the problem is, saying "if an argument from authority supports X, there is a presumption X is true" is, for every practical intent and purpose, saying it must be believed. What is the difference between saying that and "if an argument from authority supports X, then X is true"? In practical terms, absolutely nothing. The difference is that the conclusion of the first is an inductive one, and the conclusion of the second is deductive. Whether you are aware of it or not, it is humanly possible to take something as true while purposefully maintaining an open mind to the possibility of being wrong.

As for how it trumps evidence, let me ask: is there any belief you hold that you hold in spite of the prevailing view of authorities on the subject because you were convinced by evidence? If so, what is it? No. But that is due to the fact that experts are better than me at interpreting evidence. Every time I have been presented compelling evidence of something which flies in the face of the expert consensus on the subject, I have made an effort to educate myself in at least the very basic principles of the field, then familiarized myself with the evidence as best I can. Each time, without fail, I have changed my mind. That is not to say I don't believe anything that experts themselves don't believe. However, those beliefs are all things the experts should be expected to have no belief on. They involve people and factors that experts have no knowledge of. For instance, I believe one of my coworkers will greet me on Monday morning with a hearty "Good morrow!" yet there is no sociological or psychological consensus on the specific greeting that specific person will make me on Monday, January 11th, 2016. This is also a perfect example of an inductive conclusion: I presume my coworker will greet me that way. I have good reason to believe this. However, I also accept the possibility that he may not. I freely admit that it is possible he will simply mutter "'Morning," to me as he shuffles towards the coffee pot.

I've already addressed multiple of your sources. You haven't shown how they are not reliable sources. You haven't even implied they aren't, you've simply argued with them. You're sitting here explicitly telling me that legitimate authorities on the subject are wrong, while you (some rando off the internet) are right. I will admit, at least, that this much is consistent with your position, even if your own quoting of sources is completely at odds with your position.

many of them just focus on the most common form the fallacy is encountered in. Yes, and they do so by explicitly stating that certain conditions must be met to consider it a fallacy. The rest of them explicitly state that certain conditions must be met for it not to be a fallacy. Quite a few of those explicitly state that it is not always a fallacy.

How are the sources cited non-expert? They're journal and university publications. They are journal and university publications, yes in completely different fields from philosophy.

What you're really saying is that someone who disagrees with your position isn't an expert.Stop putting words in my mouth. There is a huge difference between saying "None of the experts I've found disagree with me," and "Anyone who disagrees with me is not an expert." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it'd be better to step aside because of any disagreement, it's just that I don't think you're trying to build a consensus or have an NPOV here. There's already been a mediation attempt on this issue that blew through two mediators in the space of a few hours because you didn't trust the mediator - that speaks to the lack of cooperation we're getting here. How can progress get made on the page if someone insists that their version has to be the only version and that's the end of the story? What should have taken hours ("I could live with a page that said X as long as it said Y too" "OK, let's get that made!") is taking days. There's gonna have to be compromise here: what would a version of this article you could at least bear the existence of look like?

You didn't answer my question: what is the difference between the two when it comes down to practical terms? Like you yourself say, its not only the evidence, but even the interpretation of evidence that's subject to appeals to authority. You're forcing a radical interpretation of authority and its reliability onto sources that talk about the appeal. It goes way beyond "this can be useful when weighing sides in an issue" or "this is not always a fallacy", you're wanting to turn authorities into something like a Magisterium that is beyond doubt, and whose word we must assume is true no matter what - since we must presume they are correct even about interpretations of evidence. Only one single source you've given mentions anything about an automatic presumption authorities are always correct. We have a source given by FL or Atlanta that explicitly says this is a minority, and other sources saying the traditional view is that the argument is a fallacy. If only one source says we have to assume any statement support by the appeals is true, and so many others contradict them, then trusting that source and that source alone violates WP:UNDUE. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Two points about the source you are citing here. First, it is forty years old, so it is no longer an accurate guide to the dominant view in the field today. Second, the position described as the "minority view" in that article is not the one we are discussing. The author is there describing a dispute about how laymen should weigh the relative merits of empirical data and scientific authority. He describes a "vocal minority" who claim that the authority of the scientist should take precedence even over the empirical data. That is an interesting view, but it is not the one being put forward here. Mjolnirpants and I are making no assumptions about the relative weight of these two kinds of arguments (although I would guess that both of us think that empirical data should have more weight than authority). Rather, we are arguing over whether arguments from authority should be taken to have any weight at all. If they are always fallacious, then they shouldn't as they would then add no evidence for the conclusion. But if they are not always fallacious, then they can function as evidence that the conclusion is true.

You seem to think that Mjolnirpants is arguing for the claim that non-fallacious arguments from authority are definitive arguments proving their conclusions. He is not. Rather, he is arguing that you are not making an error in reasoning if you take as evidence for the claim that you have a cavity that your dentist tells you that you have a cavity. This isn't proof. Obviously you could go to another dentist who tells you the first dentist is wrong, and then shows you pictures proving this. But nonetheless, it is generally taken as a sufficient reason to believe that you have a cavity if your dentist tells you so. It is this kind of argument that all these logic books want to bracket off as non-fallacious arguments from authority. Original Position (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Original Position) You didn't answer my question: what is the difference between the two when it comes down to practical terms? Let's set aside the fact that I have a laundry list of questions posed to you which you haven't answered and deal with this. The rest, I leave to OP and the admins.

Yes, in fact, I did. You do not posses the necessary grasp of philosophy or logic to understand what I said. Original Position, however, said it in much plainer language: The former is evidence, the latter is proof. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 07:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Sadler, Troy (2006). "Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education". Journal of Science Teacher Education.

Semmelweiss Example

I started looking through the citations for this case and so far am not finding much support for the story as told in this article. I already edited it a little, but before doing more I wanted to post what I found so if anyone has more expertise they can do it right.

Here are the basic issues: this article states that the rejection of Semmelweis's view was based on an inappropriate appeal to authority. To support this it claims that only a very few supported Semmelwies, that there was no academic literature supporting his view, and that it was this academic consensus against Semmelweis that led to his views being ignored for many years.

However, this view doesn't seem to be upheld by the cited sources. For instance, Carter quotes at length from an Oliver Wendell Holmes article that predates Semmelweis that also puts forward the contagion view, and in fact claims that this is the dominant view at the time. Second, I can't find support in these articles for the claim that the reason Semmelweis's view was rejected was because of an overreliance on authority.

I don't know much about this topic--am I missing something here? Original Position (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I started looking into the sources, and I have to agree with you. The Carter source, which is used to support the statement "Multiple critics stated that they did not accept the claims in part because of the fact that in all the academic literature on puerperal fever there was nothing that supported the view Semmelweis was advancing." does not say that at all. Instead, he writes about opposition to Semmelweiss' claim to have been the first to make this discover, and the importance of the methods Semmelweiss used. In fact, the source admits in the very first paragraph that Oliver Wendell Holmes had published extremely similar findings, and points out that it has been recently said that "...a Finnish physician preceded Semmelweiss in his discovery". Meanwhile this source is about the importance of the laboratory work Semmelweiss did, as opposed to all of the credit going to his clinical work. It is behind a paywall, but the abstract clearly outlines the scope of the work. Even if it did mention appeals to authority, it would necessarily do so as an aside to the focus of the article, and as such, may well have been mistaken.

A review of the Semmelweiss article's sources paints a different (though similar) picture, as well.

• Semmelweiss' work was announced by Ferdinand Von Hebra in December 1847 and April 1848, and the subsequent publication of some of his findings by his students. However, the issue of the communication of diseases by means of an infectious agent -which explicitly included the transmission from corpse to patient by way of the doctor- was addressed in an 1843 paper by Oliver Wendell Holmes, On The Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever, a paper which was not dismissed at all. In fact, it seems to have been published and quietly accepted by the medical community at the time, though it did spark some controversy in the mid 1850's, either prompting or as a result of his re-publication of the work as a pamphlet.
• Those sources note the specific lines of evidence used to achieve the then-current understanding of disease, and point out that Semmelweiss offered no underlying theory for his discovery, and little evidence which could be used to construct an underlying theory. (this contradicts the narrative in this article, because it shows that his findings were not dismissed entirely based on appeals to authority, but based on a lack of evidence to support them, with plenty of evidence to support the established view.) They point out that no-one really doubted his results (he had implemented changes in his hospital prior to any publication of his work, and thus had concrete results to show), only his explanation of them, by way of those who published on his behalf.
• They also plainly state that much of the initial reaction was to say that his findings were not new, with people pointing to the prior work of Oliver Wendell Holmes and others as already establishing a link between the handling of corpses by doctors and the infection rates of those doctors' patients.
• They point out that Semmelweiss himself never published until 1860, only his students and colleagues published at the time, leading to some misunderstanding about his findings. (This is tied to the protests that his findings were not new, as the misunderstandings were over the specific method of infection.)

All in all the picture painted by the sources is more one about science's self-correcting apparatus than a cautionary tale about appeals to authority. I'm sure that appeals to authority were used to dismiss his claims by some, but it only appears to be a major part of the narrative in pop culture (to be fair, the portrayal in this article is one I've heard before from pop culture sources). The truth is apparently that there was good reason to not treat his work as the revolutionary change it would eventually become. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign my comment, thanks for fixing that. The Scholl article has a non-paywall version at the PhilSci Archives here. Your summary seems largely accurate, it doesn't directly say anything about the rejection of Semmelweis being the result of an overreliance on authority. Original Position (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem (sorry for taking so long to respond, by the way). I think we're in agreement that the sources do not support the claims in the article. I'm going to remove all references to this example from the article. This was one which bugged me from the beginning. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Opening Sentence Changes

Currently, the opening sentence says this:

Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when used in science or argument.

I changed this opening sentence to this:

The Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert.

This change has been reverted a couple times so I will explain the reasons for my changes here. I have four primary problems with the original sentence.

1) As established in discussion above, numerous authoritative sources distinguish between fallacious and non-fallacious versions of the argument from authority. Thus, it would not be representative of expert views on this subject to say that this kind of argument is always fallacious. However, saying that the argument from authority is "a common argument form which leads to a logical fallacy when used in science or argument" will be taken by many readers to mean that it is always a fallacy when used in science or argument. Putting in the "can" clarifies that while arguments from authority can be fallacious, they are not always fallacious.

2) It is unnecessary and misleading to specify "science or argument." "Argument" is too broad--it includes everything and so can be dropped. "Science" is too specific. There is nothing in the cited sources to show that this is a problem specific to scientific reasoning any more than to philosophical or historical reasoning, or any other form of reasoning.

3) The original sentence says the argument from authority leads to a logical fallacy, which links to the page for formal fallacies. However, fallacious uses of the argument from authority are informal, not formal fallacies. Thus, using "fallacy" (or fallacious) is better than "logical fallacy," since it includes both formal and informal fallacies.

4) Finally, the citations here are not appropriate. The point of citing expert sources is that you want to get closer to the original research that established the claim you are making. Thus, ideally you want a citation from an expert on the direct issue being discussed writing about that very issue. None of your citations are of this sort.

The Gass citation is from an okay source, a professor of communication with a specialty in critical thinking (although nothing directly on the argument from authority that I can see from his CV), but you cite what appears to be a class handout, not anything from his published work. Furthermore, this handout is not about the argument from authority, but is just a single sentence summary of a number of fallacies.

The Appleby citation is from an lecture on cybernetics and philosophy of science that has nothing to do with the argument from authority. It mentions it in a brief aside, pointing out that modern science relies on more than just authority (which everyone here accepts), but is on an entirely different subject. It is a bit difficult for me to tell what Appleby's expertise is in as I was not previously familiar with cybernetics, but it isn't a traditional expertise in philosophy or logic as far as I can tell.

Finally, the Sadler citation is from an study on the results of teaching prospective science teachers methods of argumentation. It is, again, not about the argument from authority, although it again mentions it in passing as part of the curriculum of the course taught. Sadler is also not clearly an expert on this manner, as he is a professor of education, and almost all of his published research is on science education.

We don't need three citations here--one good one is enough. That is why I replaced it with a citation from Douglas Walton's Informal Logic. This is a textbook from a major university press, published in 2008, written by an expert on the subject (he has published an entire book and several articles on the nature of the argument from authority). Furthermore, I cite from an actual discussion (almost 40 pages worth) directly on the nature of this argument. This is the author that all those other people you cited would look to as the expert on this topic.

Walton says that arguments from authority (or as he calls it "expert opinion") is a "reasonable, if inherently defeasible type of argument." He spends most of his time attempting to show the logic of this type of argument. However, he does also discuss how it can go wrong, and lists three common ways it does so, of which I mentioned two in my edited version of the listed sentence. Is that not exactly what we are supposed to do here? Find the best sources and then accurately report what they say? Original Position (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9556/

controversy

what about a controversy section to funnel all this into like other pages have? if cites disagree we can make it to our advantage by making that improve a controversy section!

I moved this up above the references hearing. Controversy sections are sometimes necessary on articles but I doubt that is the case here. ----Snowded 09:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no controversy among experts on the subject. The other, very good, online philosophy encyclopedias note that not all arguments from authority are fallacious. The major logic textbooks note this. The scholarly literature on the subject notes this. So far, neither Perfect Orange Sphere nor FL or Atlanta have posted a single reference to a contemporary expert on this subject that unequivocally states that all arguments from authority are fallacious.

I'm willing to change my mind on this. If they can show that there is a real controversy among experts about whether the argument from authority is always or only sometimes fallacious, then let's add a controversy section. But until then, we don't have a good reason to do so. Original Position (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There isn't any such controversy that I'm aware of. There is an unfortunately common misconception among the lay populace, but philosophers all seem to be in agreement. If someone can dig up some sources showing that there are a reasonable number of philosophers (15-20% might be enough, IMHO), then I would support a section about the controversy. I tried to find some sources upon which to build a section on the misconception, but so far, it seems to have been ignored by professional philosophers. Likely because they don't often discuss philosophy with lay people, but with other experts. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing that occurs to me which might be a step towards the other side would be to note in the lead that the fallacy is often referred to by the same name as the argument. We have pretty much irrefutable evidence of this with the links the other side provided, however using those to support such a statement would be synthesis. We'd need to find a source which says that the fallacy is often referred to by the same name as the argument. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

For instance, here is the entry from Reese's Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion:

"The Argument from Authority...is the fallacy committed in appealing to the feeling of respect people have for the famous in order to win their assent to a conclusion. Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy." (1980, 168)

I think we might have a use/mention error here. This source says that the Argument from Authority is the name of a fallacy which afflicts some, but not all arguments/appeals from authority. This is obviously confusing and so it is understandable that some might think that when an expert says that the Argument from Authority is a fallacy that they are saying all arguments from authority are fallacious, even if the expert only means to refer to the specifically fallacious versions of those kinds of arguments.

The correct way to fix this would be to include a sentence noting that some modern logic textbooks refer to this fallacy as "The Argument from Inappropriate Authority" or something to disambiguate it from the category: argument from authority.Original Position (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That might work. I think maybe having a section on fallacious uses that opens with that might be the way to go. Do you agree? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Another thing I notice is that Perfect Orange Sphere is correct about the "dismissal of evidence" section being unsourced and possibly warranting removal as he did with this edit. Indeed, though I've seen that exact structure being used, I don't think I've ever seen it referenced as a fallacious example. I'm not even sure it is. After all, that is the form of "If aliens built the pyramids and put hieroglyphics on them depicting this, every egyptologist would know about it. Since no serious egyptologist asserts that aliens built the pyramids, those hieroglyphics that you are showing me must either be either forgeries or misinterpreted." I contend without reservation that this argument is both valid (the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises) and sound (the conclusion is valid and the premises are true), albeit in an inductive, not deductive sense. I may be wrong, however, which is why I'm raising it here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

John Locke claim in history section

I can't access the source given, and I can't find (with an admittedly brief search) any other source to support this, and I find it a bit fishy. I seem to recall some classical Greek Philosophers mentioning the appeal to authority, which would certainly predate anything by John Locke. Can anyone confirm or refute this for me with? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I don't the Hamblin book in front of me anymore, I read it in the library. However, here is from Walton's Appeal to Expert Opinion': (p.33-4)

"What then happened to make a fallacy? There are two things to be taken into account. The first factor is that Locke, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), claimed to have invented the expression argumentum ad verecundiam, using the term to refer to a distinctive species of argumentation where one party in dispute tries to exploit the respect of the other party in order for an established authority to make him submit to the first party's argument. There is no evidence that anyone prior to Locke used the expression argumentum ad veredundiam in this way, to refer to a distinctive type of argumentation of this kind, so we presume Locke did in fact invent this phrase."

and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"It is John Locke who is credited with intentionally creating a class of ad-arguments, and inadvertently giving birth to the class of ad-fallacies. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), he identified three kinds of arguments, the ad verecundiam, ad ignorantiam, and ad hominem arguments, each of which he contrasted with ad judicium arguments which are arguments based on “the foundations of knowledge and probability” and are reliable routes to truth and knowledge."

If you look through the rest of that chapter in Walton you'll see that while there were discussions of the argument from authority in Ancient and Medieval philosophy, it wasn't then classified as a fallacy. Original Position (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, fwiw, there is some debate over whether the argumentum ad verecundiam identified by Locke should be identified with the typical Argument from Authority fallacy referred to in this article. So the historical story is definitely more complicated than what I put into the article. Original Position (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you. I was misreading the section as saying that John Locke was the first to discuss the veracity of appealing to experts. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Argument from authority as a statistical syllogism.

The argument from authority is referred to in the opening paragraph and in the section on it's general form as being a statistical syllogism. This is problematic in a couple ways. First, and most obviously, it says this in the section on General Form:

As a statistical syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:

X holds that A is true.

X is an authority on the subject.

The consensus of authorities agrees with X.

There is a presumption that A is true.

The problem here is that this is not a statistical syllogism. Statistical syllogisms are like deductive syllogisms except they use percentage based quantifiers (or terms like "most," "few," etc) in the general premise. There is no such premise in the argument above. This is probably the result of a mashup of two earlier edits, one using the form of the argument as given in Gensler's The A to Z of Logic (the cited source), but the idea that its general form is that of a statistical syllogism from Salmon's Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. However, note that Salmon, in calling it a statistical syllogism claimed its general form was this:

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.

a says p about S

p is correct

That is a statistical syllogism. So if we are going to continue calling it a statistical syllogism, we should substitute Salmon's version of its general form for Gensler's.

The second problem is that the page is not consistent in its description of the argument's form. It says in the section on General Form that it has many forms, of which the statistical syllogism is one. But in the opening paragraph it is less measured, stating without reservation that it is a statistical syllogism.

I looked at a few sources and this seems to be the lay of the land. There have been a number of different attempts to capture the logic of arguments from authority of which the statistical syllogism proposal by Salmon is just one. It is prominent enough to end up in a major logic textbook, but doesn't seem to be the consensus view based on the variety of different ways it is presented in other logic textbooks (such as Gensler's or Walton's). Furthermore, in Walton's book he listed three different general attempts to categorize these arguments: deductive, inductive, and presumptive. Salmon's is a specific inductive interpretation, but I can't find support for the idea that it is the dominant one.

Thus, I would suggest removing the claim that it is a statistical syllogism from the opening paragraph. I would suggest going with Gensler's version (or Walton's) in the General Form section while also clarifying that it is only one of several proposals for the general form of the argument (I prefer using Gensler's and Walton's vs. Salmon's because I think it is easier to understand for most people who probably don't know what a statistical syllogism is). Original Position (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is probably the result of a mashup of two earlier edits
It was. I wasn't sure if the implication (that the authority is usually right, instead of always right) needed to be spelled out to make it a statistical syllogism, so I left the phrase in. Perhaps adding in another form in the general section might be appropriate. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the definition of statistical syllogism from Salmon's book:

"The statistical syllogism is an inductive form that closely resembles the deductive form of syllogism, but its general premiss is a statistical generalization rather than a universal generalization." (111)

So I think we do need to keep it in if we are going to refer to this argument as a statistical syllogism, otherwise it would be some other type of inductive argument. I've also thought about adding another form to the General Form section. Here is the issue. Probably the most accurate thing to do would be to say that there is disagreement among contemporary scholars as to the exact logical structure of arguments from authority. This disagreement might in part be because there are numerous different forms it can take, or because these are actually normative attempts at constructing this argument. Then list a few of the more prominent attempts at capturing the logic of the argument with a brief explainer for each of them.

My concern would be that this would be too much information for an encyclopedia article. You have more experience here than I, so your judgement is probably better about that. On the other hand, three examples is probably more than we need to illustrate the argument, it might be good to tilt the article back a bit more towards theory. Original Position (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds overall like a good idea. There's no real principle against putting too much information in, especially when that information may be used by a layman. For instance, I could clearly see two neckbeards arguing in youtube comments over what the precise formal structure of the appeal to authority is. One side says it must include the clause that the authority is espousing the consensus, while the other insists that it's not, because he might be speaking about his particular speciality, about which there is no formal consensus.

There is one problem I see, which is the problem of synthesis of information. While we do have two reliable sources which give different forms of the argument, we don't (to my knowledge) have a source which explicitly says that there is some controversy over the specific form. Now, that's apparently true, but it's still against WP policy. The reason for this is because one of those sources might represent a a minority view (after all, for there to be any dissent from the consensus, there must be experts who hold the minority view), or because one of those sources may have made a mistake, and would actually agree with the other, were it brought to the author's attention, or for any of a hundred other reasons. I've seen the former example happen here, where an editor was making edits to the String theory article, using a reliable source about Loop quantum gravity. They were making the article state certain conclusions which arise naturally from LQG, but which were mutually exclusive with the conclusions of ST and introducing a conundrum to any reader who put serious thought into it. I've seen the latter situation happen as well, though not here. So I think we should at least try to find a source which states there are different forms of the argument, then put a few of those in the article to illustrate the difference. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw you deleted that sentence about it being a statistical syllogism, which is good. The cited sources didn't really support it and it was too unambiguous. However, I did find this source in which Walton says clearly that Salmon considers it a statistical syllogism. It's never explicitly stated, but strongly implied that Salmon considers it to always be a statistical syllogism. (in case you don't want to go over it, the source is arguing against Salmon, putting forth that it's not a statistical syllogism because the conditions under which the statistical clauses are formed are not themselves statistical in nature, making the statistical clause a binary one. I don't buy this argument, but I -of course- defer to the judgement of philosophers and let them argue the case for me). This might be something we want to put in there, maybe as a quick one-off sentence, such as "The argument is sometimes said to be a form of statistical syllogism, because it can be formulated such that the authority is likely correct, though this is not universally accepted." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Added Salmon's version to the Logical Form section.Original Position (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Walton, Douglas (Nov 1, 2010). Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. Penn State Press. pp. 100–101. Retrieved 13 January 2016.

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)

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. No one even told me there was a discussion there about this. 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)

• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class logic articles
• Mid-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests