The folly of "authority"

Whilst I doubt anyone is immune to the "argument from authority" fallacy I think it is most regularly deployed by the theistic side of the debate here at EvC.How often do we see the religious views and opinions of eminent (or even not so eminent) scientists held up as justification for theistic conclusions of one sort or another? From abortion to cosmological constants via the very existence of a "designer".....Whilst non-theists might cite the arguments of the likes of Stephen Hawking I haven't seen anyone say things along the lines of "Stephen Hawking is an atheist so there must be something to atheism". Conversely there are many example of theists citing the fact that so-and-so believes the same as them as some sort of evidential justification for the belief held.

Past the PhD stage isn't some sort of academic post effectively a qualification? A professorship or whatnot? And then there are fellowships of various societies and that sort of thing. And then prizes such the the Nobel....I think you are technically right on the qualification thing but there are various routes to scientific status beyond a "mere" PhD.Not that any of that provides any weight at to many of the redundant arguments of authority that are so often cited here at EvC.

Yes - In the "argument from authority" context I thinkl "credentials" is exactly the word that describes what I am yabbering on about.