Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / AppealToAuthority

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* St. Creator/ThomasAquinas discusses this in length in his work, especially in the ''Literature/SummaTheologiae'', and typically makes this kind of argument in the Sed contra to indicate his position. In Part I, Q. 1, Art. 8. of the Summa, one of the objections to sacred doctrine being argumentative is that the argument is either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, then it would be unbefitting the dignity of sacred doctrine because the argument from authority is the weakest form of proof... [[HypocriticalHumor according]] to Creator/{{Boethius}}. St. Thomas replies that the argument from authority is the weakest form of argument ''if based on human reason'', but the strongest if based on ''divine'' revelation. Arguments from divine authority works if the opponent concedes belief in divine revelation, which is why the Bible is used when disputing with heretics.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Cut page.


* When the ''Franchise/MassEffect'' sex-scene fiasco was at its height, Creator/{{Fox News|Channel}} brought in an "expert" who knew nothing about the game, and wasn't even regarded as an expert in her own field (child psychology).

to:

* When the ''Franchise/MassEffect'' sex-scene fiasco was at its height, Creator/{{Fox News|Channel}} Fox News brought in an "expert" who knew nothing about the game, and wasn't even regarded as an expert in her own field (child psychology).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Calling upon an expert in a field, but basing the argument upon something besides their status or assumed infallibility. For example, trusting a doctor's judgement in a medical manner not because because he is a doctor, but because he has demonstrated his knowledge and has charts or other evidence backing up his claims.

to:

* Calling upon an expert in a field, but basing the argument upon something besides their status or assumed infallibility. For example, trusting a doctor's judgement in a medical manner not because because he is a doctor, but because he has demonstrated his knowledge and has charts or other evidence backing up his claims.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ImNotADoctorButIPlayOneOnTV: The person is an actor known for the role of a fictional expert.

to:

* ImNotADoctorButIPlayOneOnTV: The person is only an actor known for the role of a fictional expert.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

[[index]]




to:

[[/index]]




to:

[[index]]





to:

\n[[/index]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None




to:

\n* WorthlessForeignDegree: The person may be a legitimate expert, it's just that their credentials are from a country that doesn't transfer for employment purposes.

Added: 208

Changed: 189

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* LabcoatOfScienceAndMedicine: How can you not trust this person as an expert when they're wearing a white coat?



* ImNotADoctorButIPlayOneOnTV: The person is an actor known for the role of a fictional expert.




to:

* PhonyDegree: The character is fraudulently claiming to be an expert.



* ADegreeInUseless: Their degree qualifies them as an ExpertInUnderwaterBasketWeaving; giving them authority to say, "Would you like fries with that?"

to:

* ADegreeInUseless: Their degree training qualifies them as an ExpertInUnderwaterBasketWeaving; giving them so they do have some authority but only for things related to say, saying, "Would you like fries with that?"



* HardOnSoftScience: People with authority in a more concrete discipline dispute the expertise of people with authority in a more theoretical one. This isn't necessarily fallacious, simply trying to establish the parameters of what we accept as relevant proof for the question at hand.


to:

* HardOnSoftScience: People with authority expertise in a more concrete discipline dispute the expertise credentials of people with authority expertise in a more theoretical one. This isn't necessarily fallacious, simply trying to establish the parameters of what we accept as relevant authoritative proof for the question at hand.

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* CripplingOverspecialization: The character has spent so much time mastering one narrow field that they're legitimately incompetent at anything else.

Added: 1543

Changed: 146

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


More accurately called ''Irrelevant Authority'', ''Inappropriate Authority'', or ''Questionable Authority'', Irrelevant Authority is citing someone as an expert even though they are not really an expert on the question under discussion; their expertise is in an unrelated field; their "expertise" is not in a legitimate discipline at all (e.g. an "expert" psychic or ghost hunter); their expertise is ''what'' is under discussion; they have not been demonstrated to actually exist; or they made the statement in a state where their judgment was suspect (ie, they were drunk, high, senile, stressed, angered, etc). In some cases, they do possess a legitimate expertise and renown in some field, it's just that said field is unrelated to the one being discussed.

to:

More accurately called ''Irrelevant Authority'', ''Inappropriate Authority'', or ''Questionable Authority'', Irrelevant Authority is citing someone as an expert even though they are not really an expert on the question under discussion; their expertise is in an unrelated field; their "expertise" is not in a legitimate discipline at all (e.g. an "expert" psychic or ghost hunter); their expertise is ''what'' is under discussion; they have not been demonstrated to actually exist; or they made the statement in a state where their judgment was suspect (ie, they were drunk, high, senile, stressed, angered, etc).

In some cases, they do possess a legitimate expertise and renown in some field, it's just that said field is unrelated to the one being discussed.
discussed. A person with a Ph.D. in astrophysics may be fairly regarded as an authority on orbital mechanics, but less so when it comes to, say, radiology or ancient history.

!!! Tropes which rely on or use this fallacy:

* ImADoctorNotAPlaceholder: The character acknowledges their lack of expertise outside their specialization.
* NotThatKindOfDoctor: Having a doctorate in a given discipline doesn't necessarily make you an expert in any ''other'' field. Same goes both ways for medical doctors.
* OmnidisciplinaryScientist: Simply being a "scientist" qualifies the character as a RenaissanceMan who's an expert in everything.
* OpenHeartDentistry: A person with ''any'' kind of medical degree is good enough to be a trauma surgeon in a pinch.

!!! Looks like this fallacy, but isn't:
* ADegreeInUseless: Their degree qualifies them as an ExpertInUnderwaterBasketWeaving; giving them authority to say, "Would you like fries with that?"
* ClosestThingWeGot: It's acknowledged (or {{Hand Wave}}d) in story that the person isn't an authority in the field we need them to be, but the situation is urgent and it's no time to be picky.
* HardOnSoftScience: People with authority in a more concrete discipline dispute the expertise of people with authority in a more theoretical one. This isn't necessarily fallacious, simply trying to establish the parameters of what we accept as relevant proof for the question at hand.

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Misspelling


* ''Literature/UnderHeaven'': Usually shows up in QuoteToQuoteCombat; using well known poetry, or name-dropping poets, bolsters arguments in the quoter's favor. (The poem ma have originally been just about how a particular river looks in summer, for example.) Also, at one point "history-mandarins" are referenced in regards to "popular" forms of storytelling.

to:

* ''Literature/UnderHeaven'': Usually shows up in QuoteToQuoteCombat; using well known poetry, or name-dropping poets, bolsters arguments in the quoter's favor. (The poem ma may have originally been just about how a particular river looks in summer, for example.) Also, at one point "history-mandarins" are referenced in regards to "popular" forms of storytelling.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''Literature/UnderHeaven'': Usually shows up in QuoteToQuoteCombat; using well known poetry, or name-dropping poets, bolsters arguments in the quoter's favor. (The poem ma have originally been just about how a particular river looks in summer, for example.) Also, at one point "history-mandarins" are referenced in regards to "popular" forms of storytelling.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


In real life, this fallacy shows up most often in discussions or arguments about both hard science and soft sciences like sociology.

to:

In real life, this fallacy shows up most often in discussions or arguments about both hard science and soft sciences like sociology.
sociology. If one or more parties are stubborn enough, this could even turn into a protracted authority and counter-authority tennis match between the two debaters. In especially blatant cases opponents might even demand sources for all the other side's claims without providing any of their own ("Do my homework") or combine this with MovingTheGoalposts by dismissing any sources that are offered.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
The statement is not a declaration of quality. And also, fireman are rather known for their cooking, since they often live out of the station for days at a time and cook for themselves.


* The American sandwich chain Firehouse Subs brags in its tagline that it was "Founded by Firemen." Needless to say, firefighters are not known for their cooking skills.
Willbyr MOD

Changed: 424

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


[[quoteright:350:[[Webcomic/TheUpturnedMicroscope https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/appeal_to_authority.png]]]]

! [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Appeal To Authority]] (argumentum ad verecundiam):

to:

[[quoteright:350:[[Webcomic/TheUpturnedMicroscope https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/appeal_to_authority.png]]]]

! [[http://en.
%% Image removed per Image Pickin' thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1630517878077164100
%% Please start a new thread if you'd like to suggest an image.
%%
!![[http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Appeal To Authority]] (argumentum ad verecundiam):
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** It is, however, ''not'' fallacious to say "I am convinced for other reasons that the Bible is the word of God and Genesis is all meant to be taken literally, and therefore conclude that the world was made in six days even though the physical evidence suggests otherwise." This is an appeal to the WordOfGod of God himself, a very relevant authority on the subject, and is therefore valid logic. Of course, the argument relies on its premises, so anyone who rejects those premises (eg a non-Christian) can't be expected to accept it.
* During the neoclassical revivals of the Renaissance, the works of Creator/{{Aristotle}} were a major victim of this. While he did get a surprising number of things right (he was one of the first to realize that whales are a mammal), many claims made by Aristotle (particularly in the field of biology) were taken as proven fact, even if many of them could be tested and disproven with trivial effort. For instance, Aristotle claimed that if you take two objects of the same shape and material but different weight and drop them, the heavier object lands first. This wasn't properly disproven until the late 16th century, despite the fact that anyone with a couple of objects, a tall building, and an observer at the bottom could find the answer themselves.

to:

** It is, however, ''not'' fallacious to say "I am convinced for other reasons that the Bible is the word of God and Genesis is all meant to be taken literally, and therefore conclude that the world was made in six days even though the physical evidence suggests otherwise." This is an appeal to the WordOfGod of God himself, a very relevant authority on the subject, and is therefore valid logic. Of course, the argument relies on its premises, so anyone who rejects those premises (eg a non-Christian) can't be expected to accept it.
it. Even many fellow Christians also don't accept such a literal interpretation, with most mainstream churches believing that evolution did happen.
* During the neoclassical revivals of the Renaissance, the works of Creator/{{Aristotle}} were a major victim of this. While he did get a surprising number of things right (he was one of the first to realize that whales are a mammal), many claims made by Aristotle (particularly in the field of biology) were taken as proven fact, even if many of them could be tested and disproven with trivial effort. For instance, Aristotle claimed that if you take two objects of the same shape and material but different weight and drop them, the heavier object lands first. This wasn't properly disproven until the late 16th century, despite the fact that anyone with a couple of objects, a tall building, and an observer at the bottom could find the answer themselves. Another infamous example is his claim that women had less teeth than men, which is untrue, and he never bothered checking (it's all rather strange, as Aristotle generally ''did'' confirm his empirical claims).

Top