Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 22 March 2017

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

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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".

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I will cite an additional source, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) (ISSN 2161-0002), the Web version, for brief explanations of some other fallacious subtypes of arguments from authority. Please share any concerns here. Chris Dubey (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I recently noticed a discrepancy between the entries of the two online philosophy encyclopedias I had cited earlier in the article. I just revised the citations to reflect the difference I found. Christopher James Dubey (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to continue this you should put them into a new section, rather than in history. --Original Position (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Original Position, I agree with FL or Atlanta. It looks like you were picking an arbitrary cutoff date for where you think the history description should end. In my opinion, that would contradict the precedents set by many other articles, as I recall even seeing articles describing recent news on their topics up to the present day. Christopher James Dubey (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who originally wrote that section. FL or Atlanta and another poster had an agenda to deny what literally no source on this argument denied: that some arguments from authority are not fallacious. I'm not willing to spend another couple months trying to persuade him that this is true as a precondition to making these edits. For instance, why does the history section now say, in flat contradiction to the information provided above and below it, that "in the Western Rationalistic Tradition and in early modern philosophy, appealing to authority was generally considered a logical fallacy."? Look at the sources, some book about PC that makes an aside about the history of philosophy and an obscure article about interpreting Sherlock Holmes. By contrast, the sources I cited contradicting that claim come from a booklength treatment of the argument from authority by one of philosophy's leading authorities on informal logic, from one of the most influential books on fallacies written in the last century, and from an article on this argument type published by the leading journal on informal logic. The point of the article is to present the views of the leading authorities on the topic at hand. FL or Atlanta acted like it was to present the views of an authority on any topic willing to say words that support FL or Atlanta's view of the argument from authority. That is intellectually dishonest.

As to your specific point, here's the problem. There are many different examples of how arguments from authority can be fallacious. You cite one of them here. Fine. But how does that relate to the history of the argument? Why did you pick this way instead of some other? Is it particularly significant or controversial? Not really. What you are really doing here is providing an example to illustrate what a fallacious argument from authority is. That would be useful to do in an encyclopedia. We used to have a section doing that here called "Logical Form." That's where your example should go, not in a discussion of the changing history of how this argument is understood. Unfortunately, when I brought back the section on "Logical Form," FL or Atlanta reverted it because of reasons.

Second, I have no objection to discussing the current view of the argument in the History section - I did so myself in citing contemporary logic textbooks. However, I did so because they were relevant to the history of the argument itself, contrasting contemporary ways of referring to the argument from how it was referred to 50 years ago. Your own discussion here is just about the nature of the argument itself, not about how that nature shows a different understanding of the argument now than in the past. Original Position (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the fallacious forms my citations described are indeed significant, though maybe the quotes should include more from them. I'm not opposed, though, to moving that information around back into a "Logical Form" section. I would be opposed to deleting those sources. I'm curious, though, what are these sources you had cited? You mention a book and an article from "the leading journal." Would you show us again? Christopher James Dubey (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

To elaborate on some points...

"The point of the article is to present the views of the leading authorities on the topic at hand." This in itself is an appeal to authority, is circular logic, and even if certain philosophical "authorities" are "leading authorities" on the subject, I would expect citations are needed to confirm that.

"There are many different examples of how arguments from authority can be fallacious. You cite one of them here. Fine. But how does that relate to the history of the argument?" My contributions were citations by philosophy professors Hans Hansen, Bradley Dowden, and John Nolt et al, who all if I remember correctly have PhDs in philosophy and whose cited work is about logical fallacies. Therefore they are also authorities on this and their cited work is part of the history of this subject.

"Why did you pick this way instead of some other? Is it particularly significant or controversial? Not really." This is subjective. In my opinion, Hansen, Dowden, and Nolt et al's cited work is significant, because by citing them the article points out that not only must authorities be qualified and reliable, but they must also present adequate evidence and there must not be controversy or widespread disagreement on the matter at hand. This implies that appeals to authority can be fallacious not only by being Appeals to Unqualified or Unreliable Authorities, but by being Appeals to Unjustified Authorities or Appeals to Arbitrarily Preferred Authorities when authorities are in major disagreement. Removing the citations of those three published reliable sources would eliminate those points from the article.

"Your own discussion here is just about the nature of the argument itself, not about how that nature shows a different understanding of the argument now than in the past." Really? So it can be shown that those points were agreed to by past authorities? I didn't get that sense reading the article before I added those citations. Christopher James Dubey (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Definition

Should be "when someone claims to be right solely because they say so or because X *expert* says so without secondary evidence." not "when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert" as that actually suggests that experts are always right (in their field) which is the whole point of this. Should I change? Endercase (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you should make the change - the true essence of the fallacy is when someone says "these people say X and you should believe X because they're authorities". FL or Atlanta (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@FL or Atlanta:Yeah, but even your small change got reverted. I think I'll wait for more input. Endercase (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

1. https://carm.org/dictionary-argumentum-ad-verecundiam
2. http://rationalwiki.org/Argument_from_authority
3. http://wiki.c2.com/?AdVerecundiam

@Endercase: I am here for two reasons: (1) I have had this article on my watch list for quite some time--if you look in the archives my name comes up a number of times last year. (2) Because of the help you have sought from me. I am a bit torn on whether to advise you here or on your talk page. Since the advice has to do with your post here about this article, I am going to post the bulk of my reply here, so others working on the article can chime in. Some advice:

(1) I do not believe any of the three sources you cite above are good WP:RS for this Philosophy article. If you do not believe me or understand why, you can try posting AS A QUESTION on the WP:RS/N board -and/or- on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy and see what other editors say. To do so, I would suggest a wording such as this:

Do these three sources

1. https://carm.org/dictionary-argumentum-ad-verecundiam
2. http://rationalwiki.org/Argument_from_authority
3. http://wiki.c2.com/?AdVerecundiam

constitute valid WP:RS to justify the statement:

Argument from authority is "when someone claims to be right solely because they say so or because X *expert* says so without secondary evidence."

Or just wait for more opinions here.

(2) Despite the fact that Rational wiki is not WP:RS by my opinion, I think their article is far better than ours.

(3) The arguments for changing the article as you propose go way back. Read through the archives of the talk page. I participated in some of those discussions.

(4) It's not a good idea to join in with the edit-warring. We need to collaborate. An WP:RfC might be the solution. If you want to propose an WP:RfC I might be willing to help. Other editors might too. If so, be careful to craft the WP:RfC in relatively discrete terms that do not argue for one version or another. A binary YES / NO often helps move things forward. Look at past WP:RfC in other articles as I suggested as examples.

(5) I do not believe your proposed change is an improvement, even though common sense might make it seem correct. Go to the WP:RS as has been done in the lengthy discussion in the archives to see what scholars in Philosophy say about Argument from authority.

(6) I will leave my last comment on your talk page since it is about behavior.

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, a "true expert" can have valuable insight.

So I too feel like it is currently redundant. If we made the above changes that I suggested then it wouldn't be. But, the current intro suggests that a true expert is always right in their field and as such the statement doesn't really make any sense to me.

@MjolnirPants, MPants at work, FL or Atlanta, Perfect Orange Sphere:I'm pinging all accounts that have been involved in this minor edit war. Other than my above statement I'll stay out of it. Please revert me if I am out of order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endercase (talk • contribs)

Sounds good to me: we make your changes, and we can also include that sentence. That would give it purpose within the article. I support Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, as the main user who expressed distaste for this has stepped aside I guess I will attempt to convey their argument. The logical fallacy of an argument from authority is not the expertise in and of itself but the idea that expertise can supersede evidence or that evidence does not matter as much as authority. As such the value of and argument from authority is not in the authority in an of itself but in the experience with the data that the expert would have. So while an appeal to authority my be off-putting for some, the value of the experts' view on any subject must be weighed. As such the article must reflect that an appeal to authority is not inherently fallacious, but instead just that it can be fallacious.

Proposal I think we should model our intro after the one at the Rational Wiki with a slightly better explanation of how this type of argument can be fallacious, while still maintaining the idea that it is not necessarily so. We should open a sub page and work on the wording there, and do a Rfc when we feel it is ready. We can leave a tag on the intro linking to the work if y'all would like. I have seen that mentioned for use when a particular portion of text is disputed.

I think that it is very important that we do this collaboratively and without any name calling or finger pointing. Not that that needs to be mentioned.

We can make this work for everyone. Endercase (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The sub page is at Argument from authority/New introduction Endercase (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2017 (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