A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

quote:

---

If we say Einstein demonstrated 'x' it is very different thing from Einstein claimed 'x'.

---

Agreed, but irrelevant. The scenario that I presented in Message 36 reduces to "Einstein claimed x", and I claim that though this can be considered an appeal to authority, it is not a logical fallacy in this case. Others have stated that this is not an appeal to authority, and I have asked for an explanation of why it is not.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Suppose we are discussing what Darwin or Einstein actually said about religion. A quotation from Darwin or Einstein is the best way to answer this, and is logically valid.

---

​

And that is not an appeal to authority. That is direct evidence of the topic of discussion. If instead you quoted some Einstein biographer on what Einstein believed about religion, that would be an appeal to authority.

---

If quoting Darwin or Einstein is not an "appeal to authority" in this instance, then we need to better define "appeal to authority". I agree that it is not a logical fallacy, but how is it not an "appeal to authority"?

---

If the question is the truth of a particular religious doctrine, quoting Darwin or Einstein or anyone else about the doctrine is an appeal to authority. If the question is what Darwin or Einstein said, their quotes are direct evidence of what they said.In general, a fallacious argument can be described as a form of argument where it's possible for the premises to be true but the conclusion is false. In the following argument:All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortalif the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is a sound argument. In this argumentAll men are mortal
Socrates is mortal
Therefore, Socrates is a manit's quite possible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. (Socrates could be my pet fish.)An appeal to authority is a fallacy because it's possible for the authority to be wrong about what they say. The truth of the conclusion rests on something more than just the premise. The premise can be true (the authority actually said what they are quoted as saying) but the conclusion can be false (the authority is wrong). In the example of the Darwin quote where the subject is what Darwin said about religion, if the quote is accurate, then it is something that Darwin actually said about religion. We're not relying on the accuracy of someone else's claim for the accuracy of the conclusion.

Because in the particular case under discussion the significance of their remarks does not rest on their authority, but simply on them being them.If Darwin said "I like strawberries", then this is evidence that Darwin liked strawberries. This has nothing to do with his status as a great naturalist; if Drooling Jock McStupid, three-times winner of the All-Scotland Idiocy Competition, said "I like strawberries", then that would equally be evidence that Drooling Jock McStupid likes strawberries. Authority doesn't come into it.

quote:

---

Simple. Suppose we are discussing what Darwin or Einstein actually said about religion. A quotation from Darwin or Einstein is the best way to answer this, and is logically valid.

---

But that would not be an argument from authority. That is, we are not using Darwin or Einstein as authorities - we are directly examining the relevant material. If we want to know what they said then what they said is a directly relevant fact. An argument from authority requires us to cite the authorities assertions INSTEAD of the directly relevant facts.So, no, that is not a counter-example.

quote:

---

???
Sorry, but I don't understand your reply. My question was how a quote of Darwin or Einstein is not an "appeal to authority", and I don't see how you've answered this.

---

As I have just explained, if we want to look at what Darwin or Einstein said, then what they said is not merely expert opinion, it is the fact of the matter.An appeal to authority relies on expert opinion without looking at the facts of the matter. (Using a secondary source, rather than the original writings themselves would qualify).It really is that simple.Of course that assumes that you are quoting the actual writings rather than what they said later about those writings. For instance, in the society depicted in the novel Starship Troopers only military veterans have the right to vote. In a later essay the author, Robert Heinlein, claimed otherwise - that there were a number of non-military occupations that would confer the same right. In this case, quoting the novel would not be an argument from authority (because the book is the subject) but quoting the later essay would be an argument from authority - because it rests not on the actual content of the novel, but on what Heinlein said (and would lead to an incorrect conclusion !).Might I suggest that if a "proper understanding" is the goal of the thread, the people who do not understand what they are talking about should stop arguing and listen to those of us who do.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

If you say "X says P, and X is an expert, therefore P", then that's an appeal to authority, and a logical fallacy.On the other hand, if you say "peer reviewed research by X et all. has revealed that P (and here's a link to the research paper), so we can reasonably assume that P", then you are on safer ground, because you are using X's research data and conclusions for your argument, and not his reputation.At the very least, in a formal argument it's bad form to introduce experts with a list of their academic titles and Nobel prizes. If you have to list something, then list their research papers.

It is very relevant!The former is a description of a data point (not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to the evidence base). The latter is a claim that because x said x, and z it must be true (a logical fallacy).Where is the confusion? It is a very straightforwards difference. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

If we say peer reviewed research aren't we still appealing to the authority of the peers? Aren't we presenting the research as more valid because of their approval?A group of meta researchers have concluded that medical research, even peer reviewed is lacking in trustworthiness. Lies, Damed Lies, and Medical ScienceIf research isn't necessarily right when approved by peers and one presents a peer reviewed study as more valid just because it is peer reviewed, then would that be classified as appealing to authority?If one rejects research because it isn't peer reviewed or done by someone with credentials, does that fall under this fallacy or is there another name for it?I realize the best scenario would be to see the actual research, but most lay people don't have that access.

Yes, but at least we are not relying on one authority, but instead on multiple, often competing researchers (or research groups even). If they compete, and still agree about the conclusions, then that's a reasonable safeguard. But above all, we are not presenting someone as an authority, but some of their research as material for discussion. Basically, yes. But just as I would not accept "P is true because X says so", I would also not accept "P is true because it is peer reviewed". I mentioned some additional provisions in my previous post. The term "closed-mindedness" springs to mind...

An argument from authority is an argument that rests on the view of an expert or some other source consider as authoritative (e.g. arguing that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old because the Bible says so is an argument from authority)An argument from authority is not logically valid because, as all have recognised, authorities are not always correct. That is to say that it is a logical fallacy. Note, please, that an argument may still be rationally compelling even if it is not logically valid.An argument from authority may still be a good argument, provided:A genuine authority is citedThe authority's claims are accurately represented (i.e. no quote mines)There is a strong consensus amongst the relevant authorities in regard to the claim being argued for.

Peer review is authoritative on what gets published in the usual outlets. But it is not authorititative on what is true or on what is to be believed.

• There's a lot of crap that makes it through peer review;
• Some good stuff does not make it through peer review, but it is hard to know how much because we probably don't hear about most of it.

As Designtheorist has failed to wriggle out of the charge of 'appeal to authority' can we now allow him/her the chance to wriggle out of the charge 'special pleading'?If there is time we can go on to plagarism, maybe.

If you commit fallacious arguments you will be called out.
This is a discussion board full of people who have spent years sharpening they're debating skills. If you have your ass handed to you; all you can do is go back and find out how to make better more convincing arguments. Logical fallacies do nothing to bolster your position in a room of people who can recognize one the moment it is uttered. Very little if anything flies past EVC board members, they eat logical fallacies for breakfast.

The proper response is to present the evidence that allowed the authority to reach their conclusion. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because it does not address the evidence. It is a way to avoid the burden of proof.

The problem is that ID/creationists very rarely use quotes that they find themselves. Instead, they regurgitate quotes they find on their website of choice. This leads to serious problems because they do not understand the context of the quote. My advice is to only use quotes that you find yourself instead of copy pasta from ID/creationist sites.