• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What Fallacy(s) is this?

pipelineaudio

Philosopher
pipelineaudio
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
5,092
You don't have a degree in X therefore you must be wrong about X

I am almost positive that this fits into Ad-hominem, but is it also appeal to authority and/or something else?
 
It's a tricky one.

There is a common belief that one person's ignorance is as valuable as another person's expertise.

Saying that you're not allowed to speak because you have no credentials would be wrong in circumstances where opinions or feelings are being sought.

Credentials include a history of working in a particular discipline with or without qualifications.

However, there are a lot of subjects where the mildly interested can't really make a contribution, because of the amount of study (formal or informal) required to get to a place where it is possible to make a contribution.

As an example, my opinion about the quantum state of individual photons trapped in diamond lattices would be utterly irrelevant to anyone working in the field.
 
Having thought about this a bit more...

Having been recorded in recording studios on multiple occasions
(as a drummer, spoken word stuff, and as a singer)...

My opinion has some value to the sound engineer in terms of:
"Do your drums sound like you want them to sound?" or,
"Would you like me to add some more reverb in this bit to give you more gravitas?"

But my opinion on how to set up a recording studio, mike up a kit, etc. is pretty much irrelevant.

This can change as expertise grows.

For example, my ex girlfriend (professional singer) had her own microphones, different ones for live and studios. I never saw an argument from a sound engineer about her using her own mikes, as far as I can tell, because they agreed with her choices.

I'd expect you to be able to tell me if microphone choice actually makes a difference for recording singers, in my case, I just do what I'm told.

:D
 
Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) Just the converse, which is equally fallacious.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority

Appeal to Authority

argumentum ad verecundiam

(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

Logical Form:

According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true.

Therefore, Y is true.

Example #1:

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true.

Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory.

Example #2:

How do I know the adult film industry is the third largest industry in the United States? Derek Shlongmiester, the adult film star of over 50 years, said it was. That's how I know.

Explanation: Shlongmiester may be an industry expert, as well as have a huge talent, but a claim such as the one made would require supporting evidence. For the record, the adult film industry may be large, but on a scale from 0 to 12 inches, it's only about a fraction of an inch.
Click to expand...
 
pipelineaudio said:
You don't have a degree in X therefore you must be wrong about X

I am almost positive that this fits into Ad-hominem, but is it also appeal to authority and/or something else?
Click to expand...

You don’t have a degree in X therefore it’s as good as mine. Let’s compare expert sources. What’s the expert consensus?
 
Last edited:
In this case, a popular woo doctor says asymptomatic carriers cannot spread the corona virus.

I pointed out paper after paper that showed the opposite but I have been told I am wrong because I "do not have a medical degree"
 
novaphile said:
Having thought about this a bit more...

Having been recorded in recording studios on multiple occasions
(as a drummer, spoken word stuff, and as a singer)...

My opinion has some value to the sound engineer in terms of:
"Do your drums sound like you want them to sound?" or,
"Would you like me to add some more reverb in this bit to give you more gravitas?"

But my opinion on how to set up a recording studio, mike up a kit, etc. is pretty much irrelevant.

This can change as expertise grows.

For example, my ex girlfriend (professional singer) had her own microphones, different ones for live and studios. I never saw an argument from a sound engineer about her using her own mikes, as far as I can tell, because they agreed with her choices.

I'd expect you to be able to tell me if microphone choice actually makes a difference for recording singers, in my case, I just do what I'm told.

:D
Click to expand...

I do a weekly show exposing audio engineering myths. I LIVE for that sort of thing!
 
pipelineaudio said:
In this case, a popular woo doctor says asymptomatic carriers cannot spread the corona virus.

I pointed out paper after paper that showed the opposite but I have been told I am wrong because I "do not have a medical degree"
Click to expand...

Am I right in guessing that your discussion is not with the woo doctor himself, but rather with someone who has pointed to him as an authority?
 
pipelineaudio said:
In this case, a popular woo doctor says asymptomatic carriers cannot spread the corona virus.

I pointed out paper after paper that showed the opposite but I have been told I am wrong because I "do not have a medical degree"
Click to expand...

In that case, I would call it an argument from authority.

The fallacy occurs when someone shows an argument that is not sound, but claims soundness based on the authority of the arguer. In this case, the doctor is saying that X cannot happen (asymptomatic spread). However, there is evidence that it does in fact happen. His argument is not sound. He is, however, claiming that rather than examine the soundness of the argument directly, you should accept the authority of the arguer.

He has authority, you don't, therefore he claims he must be right. However, you have presented evidence that you are right. It is irrelevant that you are not an authority, because you are not claiming authority. You are simply claiming the ability to read.

ETA: Or, since your argument is not with the doctor directly, the arguer is citing the doctor as an authority. However, you have presented a sound argument that contradicts the doctor. This is textbook argument from authority fallacy.

"Here is evidence that proves X"
"I don't believe you, because I heard someone who is an authority say Y".
 
Last edited:
pipelineaudio said:
Yes you are
Click to expand...

So what really happened was that they made an appeal to authority (the woo doctor), and you countered with appeal to several authorities. You have more authorities than they, so you won! :D

(That's not the way to win arguments on this forum, though. Here you may have to show some real understanding of the issues at hand.)
 
I suggest the reality is more complex:
1. The viewpoint of someone with extensive experience and general knowledge in a relevant field is likely to have significantly more value than that of someone without that experience or general knowledge in that field
2. A degree is one legitimate measure of experience and general knowledge in a field, but not the only one. Experience and knowledge can be acquired other ways. A degree and extensive additional training and experience is much better than a degree alone.
3. Of course an expert can intentionally lie, be motivated inappropriately, have suffered dementia, etc. But so can a non-expert. Experts should be willing to explain the basis and justifications for their viewpoints.
4. Opinions of experts within a field can often differ to some extent. The consensus view and basis for it are important to know.
5. Experts starting with a given fact are probably better able to interpret that fact than non-experts. They have better knowledge of the overall picture.
6. The most egregious logical fail denoted “appeal to authority” is citing the viewpoint of a person on one topic as having extra weight because they are an expert in a different field. A medical doctor’s opinion on finances are not automatically stronger because they are an MD. However their opinion on a medical matter is.
 
Giordano said:
6. The most egregious logical fail denoted “appeal to authority” is citing the viewpoint of a person on one topic as having extra weight because they are an expert in a different field. A medical doctor’s opinion on finances are not automatically stronger because they are an MD. However their opinion on a medical matter is.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on most, but would like to quibble a little about the last point. Do all medical doctors have expertise on everything medical? For example on epidemiology?

In some cases I think it is also worth checking the background of the expert a bit further. Has he published any papers in reputable scientific journals? If not, what has he been doing instead? Is what he is saying mainstream or controversial? And there could be more questions depending on the situation.
 
Giordano said:
I suggest the reality is more complex:
1. The viewpoint of someone with extensive experience and general knowledge in a relevant field is likely to have significantly more value than that of someone without that experience or general knowledge in that field
2. A degree is one legitimate measure of experience and general knowledge in a field, but not the only one. Experience and knowledge can be acquired other ways. A degree and extensive additional training and experience is much better than a degree alone.
3. Of course an expert can intentionally lie, be motivated inappropriately, have suffered dementia, etc. But so can a non-expert. Experts should be willing to explain the basis and justifications for their viewpoints.
4. Opinions of experts within a field can often differ to some extent. The consensus view and basis for it are important to know.
5. Experts starting with a given fact are probably better able to interpret that fact than non-experts. They have better knowledge of the overall picture.
6. The most egregious logical fail denoted “appeal to authority” is citing the viewpoint of a person on one topic as having extra weight because they are an expert in a different field. A medical doctor’s opinion on finances are not automatically stronger because they are an MD. However their opinion on a medical matter is.
Click to expand...

However, when citing papers, one is not citing the authors, one is citing the papers. The papers have published results. If one were to say, "This must be correct, because a doctor said it." that would be an argument from authority only. However, if the paper was decent, it would show experimental data that must be refuted, not simply dismissed as, "I'm a doctor and I don't believe it."

There is a certain amount of trust in authority involved in citing a paper, I must admit, because, in reality, we are rarely capable of truly understanding what the papers actually say. However, in the best case, the papers lay out their case and that case is understandable. In that case, citing the papers is not arguing based on the authority of the authors, but on the data and arguments contained in the papers.
 
Ulf Nereng said:
I agree with you on most, but would like to quibble a little about the last point. Do all medical doctors have expertise on everything medical? For example on epidemiology?

In some cases I think it is also worth checking the background of the expert a bit further. Has he published any papers in reputable scientific journals? If not, what has he been doing instead? Is what he is saying mainstream or controversial? And there could be more questions depending on the situation.
Click to expand...

Okay on the quibble: of course there are experts in different sub fields. An MD’s opinion on medical matters in general is likely to have more value than a non-MD’s in general. But what my post discussed in terms of degrees, expertise, etc. all applies.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
However, when citing papers, one is not citing the authors, one is citing the papers. The papers have published results. If one were to say, "This must be correct, because a doctor said it." that would be an argument from authority only. However, if the paper was decent, it would show experimental data that must be refuted, not simply dismissed as, "I'm a doctor and I don't believe it."

There is a certain amount of trust in authority involved in citing a paper, I must admit, because, in reality, we are rarely capable of truly understanding what the papers actually say. However, in the best case, the papers lay out their case and that case is understandable. In that case, citing the papers is not arguing based on the authority of the authors, but on the data and arguments contained in the papers.
Click to expand...

Plus the hope/expectation that the peer reviews of the paper were adequately performed.
 
Technically, anybody can be correct so long as their givens are true and the conclusion is necessarily true under those conditions.

Appeal to expertise is really just a mental shortcut - An expert believes X because the expert had the time and inclination to study the propositions.

Refusing an appeal to expertise is validly pointing out a logical error. However - and this is a big however - the person who refuses it better have some knowledge that one of the given propositions is false (or has no truth value). Otherwise, it's just a trick to make all conclusions equally valid.
 
novaphile said:
Having thought about this a bit more...

Having been recorded in recording studios on multiple occasions
(as a drummer, spoken word stuff, and as a singer)...

My opinion has some value to the sound engineer in terms of:
"Do your drums sound like you want them to sound?" or,
"Would you like me to add some more reverb in this bit to give you more gravitas?"

But my opinion on how to set up a recording studio, mike up a kit, etc. is pretty much irrelevant.

This can change as expertise grows.

For example, my ex girlfriend (professional singer) had her own microphones, different ones for live and studios. I never saw an argument from a sound engineer about her using her own mikes, as far as I can tell, because they agreed with her choices.

I'd expect you to be able to tell me if microphone choice actually makes a difference for recording singers, in my case, I just do what I'm told.

:D
Click to expand...

well-said, sir, inc. previous post
 
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, so only if you are discussing the logical soundness of an argument is it a trump card.

All it is saying is that the type of argument alone can not be used to provide proof of a conclusion.

Unfortunately it is often used to try and undermine perfectly reasonable and sound conclusions that do not rely on the logic of an argument but on empirical evidence.

It is that adage that “there is only proof in mathematics”.

The world is simply too complex to be reduced to only statements that we can prove to be true (never mind Gödel) by logic alone. We will always end up relying on the work of authorities, we just need to keep in mind what that means in regards to the soundness of a conclusion.

ETA: An example

Claim: “I owed £1000 to the tax authorities”
Skeptic: “How did you know that?”
Claimant:”My accountant told me”
Skeptic: “Aha! That’s an appeal to an authority, you don’t know that!”
Claimant: “The tax authorities agreed with her”
Skeptic: “No that just an appeal to another authority, you simply don’t know that!”
Claimant: “The court agreed with her and the tax authorities”
Skeptic: “You keep appealing to these authorities, don’t you know that’s a fallacy!”
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom