Argument from authority

An argument from authority[a] is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.[1]

The argument from authority is a logical fallacy,[2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.[3][4]

A common cognitive bias is that it is a practical and sound way of obtaining knowledge that some presume to be correct when the authority is universally accepted, though some consider this to be an obvious circular reasoning and repetition of an argument from authority[1][5][6][7][8][9][10] and others consider to be a very weak defeasible argument or an outright fallacy.[2][11][12][13][14] The mere fact that an authority can be wrong or decide to lie means any appeal to authority must be further proved through valid logical deduction of the evidence anyway.[15][16][17]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^ a b "Fallacies". University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
  2. ^ a b Sadler, Troy (2006). "Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education". Journal of Science Teacher Education. 17 (4): 330. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4. S2CID 144949172.
  3. ^ Cummings, Louise (2015). "Argument from Authority". Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty. Springer. pp. 67–92. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_4. ISBN 9783319150130. The argument from authority has had many detractors throughout the long history of logic. It is not difficult to see why this is the case. After all, the argument resorts to the use of opinion to support a claim rather than a range of more objective sources of support (e.g. evidence from experiments, observations, or measurements)...These difficulties and other weaknesses of authority arguments have found these arguments maligned in the logical treatises of several historical thinkers...'argument from authority has been mentioned in lists of valid argument-forms as often as in lists of Fallacies'
  4. ^ Underwood, R.H. (1994). "Logic and the Common law Trial". American Journal of Trial Advocacy: 166.
  5. ^ Lewiński, Marcin (2008). "Comments on 'Black box arguments'". Argumentation. 22 (3): 447–451. doi:10.1007/s10503-008-9095-x.
  6. ^ Eemeren, Frans (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. John Benjamins. p. 203. ISBN 978-9027211194.
  7. ^ "Appeal to Authority". Association for Critical Thinking. Archived from the original on 2017-11-01. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  8. ^ Salmon, Merrilee H. (2013). Introduction to logic and critical thinking (6th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth. pp. 118–121. ISBN 9781133049753. OCLC 805951311.
  9. ^ Bedau, Mark (2009). The ethics of protocells. Boston, Massachusetts; London, England: Mit Press. pp. 341. ISBN 978-0-262-01262-1.
  10. ^ Goodwin, Jean; McKerrow, Raymie (2011). "Accounting for the force of the appeal to authority". OSSA Conference Archive.
  11. ^ Carroll, Robert. "Appeal to Authority". The Skeptic's Dictionary.
  12. ^ Woodward, Ian. "Ignorance is Contagious" (PDF). University of Tasmania. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-04-04. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  13. ^ Knight, Sue; Collins, Carol (October 2005). "The Cultivation of Reason Giving". International Journal of the Humanities. 3 (2): 187.[dead link]
  14. ^ "The Rival Theories of Cholera". Medical Press and Circular. 90: 28. 1885.
  15. ^ McBride, Michael. "Retrospective Scientific Evaluation". Yale University. Archived from the original on 2010-07-24. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  16. ^ Zinser, Otto (1984). Basic Principles of Experimental Psychology. McGraw-Hill. p. 37. ISBN 9780070728455.
  17. ^ Stephen, Leslie (1882). The Science of Ethics. G. P. Putnam's sons. p. viii.

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search