Appeal to Authority

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Appeal to eminence; appeal to "the great and the good".

Description

This fallacy in reasoning occurs when an advocate appeals to an "authoritative" person or agency in support of his or her own viewpoint, based solely on that person's authority. The authoritative source may have some prominence in the field under consideration or the person/agency may be prominent in an unrelated field. In the latter case, the gullible advocate is relying on the generalized "eminence" of the authority in an attempt to sway the opponent, rather than the presumed expertise of the authority.

Example

Bryan Bladderpocket is an academic with an interest in social policy. He is giving a seminar on multiculturalism to a small group of postgraduate students. One of the students, Mark Gonzo, says: "You claim you're an advocate of multiculturalism, but you're not really - any immigrant group which doesn't conform to liberal middle-class values is anathema to you. Many values of many different cultures conflict with Western conceptions of human rights."

Bryan (the advocate) replies: "I don't accept your point – just last Wednesday, Sir Ernest Willynillly wrote in his opinion column in the East Coast Thunderer that the norms of all known cultures are consistent with universal human rights – and I shouldn't have to remind you that Sir Ernest is a Nobel Prizewinner."

Comment

Bryan has cited Sir Ernest Willynilly's views on human rights in support of his own position. What he hasn't said is that the Nobel Prize Sir Ernest won was for Physics. In such a case, there is no reason for presuming Sir Ernest's views on any social issues have any more weight than anyone else's views.

The seeker after truth is in principle unimpressed by the prominence of the person expressing a viewpoint on an issue. Even if Sir Ernest did have qualifications in relevant social research, Mark would be entitled to be skeptical about his opinions. Without explaining why an authority holds a particular viewpoint, an advocate's argument is weak. Further to this, there are many historical examples where the consensus views of experts in a field of inquiry have been completely overturned in the light of later investigation.

Deceitful advocates often appeal to authority in order to bolster their position. The appeal to authority fallacy is a significant problem in contemporary debate on social issues.

Journalists and editorial staff in the news media often seek the views of "eminent persons" for no better reason than their availability and visibility. Journalists are under pressure of remorseless deadlines. Television, Print and online media proprietors are naturally concerned with ratings, circulation figures and page views respectively. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the lazy option is often taken – contact one of the "usual suspects" who can be depended on to comment with affected gravitas on any subject. Preferably a public figure who is popularly seen as humble and self-effacing despite having ruthlessly collected honours, distinctions and personal wealth all his or her working life.

The skeptical viewer will realise (for example) that when Sir Dean Sillybilly, an obscenely rich former supreme court judge and retiring Governor of New South Holland is pontificating on remedies for the plight of the poor during a valedictory television interview, he is more likely to have been part of the problem than part of the solution.

Similarly, the skeptic will realise that when the recently and widely acclaimed Father of the Year – Justice Gustav Flatus OAM, presumes to lecture the rest of us on child-rearing practices, he may not be doing so from credible standpoint. Despite his recent honour, he may not in fact be an exemplary parent. He is in a position to pontificate on parenting because he has managed to achieve a high level of visibility in the community through his "non-fathering" activities. Perhaps he has actually been a workaholic absent father whose long-suffering wife has had to be both mother and father to their children. There is no way of knowing for sure. But we do know that some past recipients of the "Father of the Year" award have put their own careers before the needs of their children.

The prominence of a person is evidence that the person is capable of securing prominence, quite possibly through a meticulously planned, single-minded campaign of self-aggrandizement. It is not evidence that he or she speaks with genuine authority on any matter.

When an advocate appeals to an authority, they are fallacious unless they explain why and how the authority has come to their view.

Appeal to Celebrity

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Appeal to Authority; Celebrity Endorsement

Description

The advocate argues that their argument, position, product, world view, political agenda/candidate, proposed action or cause is correct because a celebrity has endorsed it.

Example

James Canary has a child who was just diagnosed with "Indigo Encephalitis". James is arguing with his friend Laura Kronk about its cause. "I know it's related with the internet WiFi's I put in my house. He was a perfectly normal child when I just had the cable for the internets in my computer, but when he was four years old I got a new one that had the WiFi's and all of a sudden he stopped being able to communicate with me the way he used to."

Laura replies: "That's not proof of anything. Correlation doesn't prove causation".

To which James says: "Well, the actor/model Janie McCarter says the radiation from the WiFi's is dangerous and can cause cancer and other brain related illnesses. And what's more, the government and big tech all know about it and are covering it up!"

Comment

An Appeal to Celebrity is much more bizarre than a commonplace Appeal to Authority. This subspecies is worthy of comment because it is increasingly common, and often passes unnoticed by those who should know better.

The short definition of Appeal to Authority is as follows: "The advocate makes an unwarranted appeal to an authoritative person or organization in support of a proposition". Unwarranted in this context means that the appeal is without foundation, and that the supposed "authority" does not really lend any weight to the advocate's proposition (because the authority of the authority on this particular matter is not convincing, or because the advocate is falsely claiming that the authority would agree with the advocate's position).

An appeal to a celebrity's authority takes this fallacy to its absurd extreme.

The most commonplace example is using a celebrity to endorse a product or service through advertising. This tends to be harmless or risible. Harmless examples are clearly advertisements - George Clooney selling coffee. Risible examples are when companies, say, appoint a celebrity as a "creative director".

More insidious is the use of celebrities to argue for a cause. Consider the commonplace case. The celebrity is appearing on a chat show, or a news and current affairs program. The celebrity is perhaps an actor, a model, a sportsperson or reality television "star". Whatever the claim to fame, the celebrity is not known for deep thinking. And yet the interviewer inevitably asks the celebrity about his or her profound thoughts on some deep and complex issue – multilateral defence treaties, bilateral trade agreements, reform of the United Nations, health funding, dry land salinity etc. And the celebrity is eager to pontificate at length on any of these, and presumably the more impressionable viewers will be swayed by the celebrity's half-baked opinions, just because the celebrity is a celebrity.

Just once wouldn’t it be nice to see a journalist-interviewer practice real journalism and say: "Sorry to interrupt you there Sean, but you're talking about politics now, and we're not interested; after all, you're only an actor".

The danger here goes the other way too. As enjoyable as it is to beat up on celebrities, especially when they are hypocritical egomaniacs, one must not dismiss the message a priori just because it's a celebrity giving it. There's always a small chance they might be right...

Argument by Artifice

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Rationalization; asserting an unwarranted conclusion; argument by deception; Gibberish.

Description

The conclusion is all, and drives the argument. In order to make a case the advocate puts forward contrived, convoluted and unfounded assertions which any fair-minded and objective observer would perceive as artificially constructed. The reasoning may be specious, tendentious, flawed in logic and unjust in effect.

Example

Noel Maggot is the Director of Finance for the Faculty of Health at the University of Wooloomooloo. Noel is a bitter man, in part because no-one takes the trouble to pronounce his unfortunate surname correctly. (He insists it is French in origin, and should be pronounced "Mahjay".) Mr Maggot is writing a letter to Ivana Bugarov, formerly a lecturer in occupational health and safety in the School of Nursing at Wooloomooloo. The letter begins:

This is to inform you that the Faculty of Health will be asserting that it has a right to royalties on revenue generated by your leg-pulling device. Our legal office has determined that although you patented the so-called Bugarov Leg-Puller two years after you resigned from the University, you must have conceived the design of the device while an employee of the university. Further, it has been established that one of your lectures dealt in part with the therapeutic application of traction to sports injuries to the tibia and patella. Given this history, the university legal office has determined that you were not entitled to take out a patent on this device.

Comment

Devious and mendacious advocates such as Maggot attempt to use any number of self-serving obfuscations to achieve their ends – in this case an unearned financial benefit for the University. This is consistent with his role. As Director of Finance, he is tasked with earning an additional 1.5 million dollars for the Faculty of Health each year. If he fails, he will be sacked. So he is always driven by the bottom line, and his "arguments" are always self-serving. More often than not, they are also shonky and disingenuous. At times they are risible.

He was appointed to his position as Director of Finance not because he had a background in research and scholarship, but because he had made lots of money in all his previous positions (telemarketing of skin-care products, car sales, time-share real-estate, and pyramid marketing of magnetic underlays).

In the present case, and if his bullying is successful, he will ensure that the intellectual property produced by the creative mind and hard work of an individual is appropriated by an entity (the university) which made no contribution to the work.

The question of whether or not the university has valid legal grounds for its claim could only be tested in a court of law. Given that the legal resources of the university are apparently behind Maggot's claim, Ivana is unlikely to have her day in court. She would be wary of undertaking a legal defence of her position given the high cost of civil litigation and the uncertainty of the outcome. Whatever the legal position, it is clear that an artifice has been used to bully Ivana into submission.

More examples

Insurance companies produce documents designed to avoid paying out claims on policies based on cleverly worded definitions and exemptions, such as flooding and what constitutes the contents of a house. For example, a home and contents insurance policy advertises coverage of accidental damage, loss or theft of mobile phones. But a clause in the policy states the insurer must be provided with proof of purchase of the phone before making a claim, and that a police report and proof of purchase with the claim is insufficient.

Technology manufacturers create warranties that rule out nearly all forms of faults with their devices. A headphone manufacturer, for example, has a two year warranty on it's headphones that excludes any accessory that comes with the headphones. "Accessory" is defined as nearly all the parts that make up the headphones, the extension cable, the volume and playback controls, the rubber seals on the ear-buds etc.

Argument by Slogan

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Mantra argument; using emotive language; appealing to sentiment; cliché thinking; reflex thinking; mindless repetition.

Description

Argument by slogan and the family of fallacies associated with argument by slogan (see other terms above) all have in common an intent on the part of the advocate to sidestep the issue under discussion and to "wrong-foot" the opponent. Instead of logically advancing a viewpoint and dealing with any challenges to that viewpoint, the advocate seeks to wear opposition down by repeatedly asserting a simplistic view of the issue.

Example

At a rally to protest a meeting of the World Economic Forum, Brenda Dudgeon is challenged by a forum delegate from the Seychelles, who asserts that his country needs foreign investment to progress. She picks up her megaphone and begins to chant: "Global capital oppresses the poor! Global capital...". In due course, other protesters take up the chant and the delegate from the Seychelles is drowned out.

Comment

There may or may not be some validity in the assertion that "global capital oppresses the poor". Whatever the truth of the matter, the issue is far more complex than the slogan; and use of the slogan will not advance understanding. If Brenda's behaviour is extremely confrontational, she may even appear on television coverage of the event. If this is her sole aim, she has been successful. But her behaviour is most unlikely to persuade the uncommitted to her view and it is very likely to entrench opposition to her view. Arguably (and ironically), the group least likely to benefit from her sloganeering is "the poor".

If Brenda's beliefs are sincere, and if she wishes to address the causes of poverty in the third world, she needs to engage in productive debate after some thorough self-education on the issues. She needs to break out of her coterie of like-minded activists and to substitute sober reflection and hard work for the "warm inner glow" of sloganeering. If after sober reflection, Brenda has concluded that the unfettered flow of capital around the world is a primary cause of poverty, she will be able to mount a convincing argument. In advancing the argument, she will have supporting evidence for her views and practical suggestions for capital regulation. The uncommitted will seriously consider her perspective. In due course, and in her own small way, she might even advance the plight of the world's poor. It won't be as much fun as public posturing, chanting and sloganeering, but she might actually get results.

The sight of a large group of self-satisfied demonstrators marching under a banner and chanting: "What do we want?" is now a commonplace. This ritual public performance may be boring, alarming, amusing or inspirational to the onlooker - depending on his or her political beliefs, and on what answer the demonstrators give to their rhetorical question ("what do we want?"). To the critical thinker, participation in a mindless crowd of sloganeers is not an effective vehicle for productive engagement with a substantive and difficult issue. It can raise awareness or show there is popular support for the cause being protested. However, often a march under banners, accompanied by an orchestrated chant is more about socialising and group cohesion - rather than a serious attempt to right a wrong, or to initiate political or social change. In most such "demos", visceral posturing has triumphed over intellectual engagement.

It is possible for argument by slogan to manifest itself in even more mindless ways. One of the most outstandingly mindless is the mass-produced "bumper sticker". Sloganeering marches may be futile, but at least walking and chanting is a mild form of healthy exercise. Political bumper stickers really only have one message, whatever the actual words on the sticker itself. The message? "I am a clueless poseur and I apparently believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that an infantile declarative statement stuck on the outside of my car amounts to a persuasive argument. Further, I am so bereft of wit, imagination, initiative and literary skills that I have to purchase the sticker off the shelf, rather than creating one of my own."

We know that this might seem to some to be a harsh judgment. But truth must prevail, even if the truth offends those asinine advocates who are also sticklers for stickers.

Argument to Consequences

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Argument to repercussions; appeal to fear; swinging the big stick; wishful thinking.

Description

The "classic" version of this fallacy is the common case where an advocate will not entertain the possibility that an opponent's argument is correct, because if it is correct there will be adverse consequences.

Example

Margaret Chemise says to Claude Nads: "I was reading about a sociologist who has found that there are differences in the average intelligence of different racial groups. She found this out by conducting what she claims was a culturally neutral IQ test." Claude responds: "Well she must have got it wrong. There isn't an average difference in IQ between different races of people because if there was, it would allow bigots to justify their racism."

Comment

When delusional advocates believe something to be true or false because they want it to be true or false, an argument to consequences is involved. When they are hopeful for a positive consequence, they are engaging in a particular version of argument to consequences called wishful thinking. In the example above however, Claude invokes an argument to adverse consequences.

He reasons that differences in IQ between racial groups must not exist, because if they did exist it would adversely affect race relations. In doing so he is making an unjustifiable assertion. He would be better off addressing his core concerns about race relations by engaging in subtle and complex arguments about: (a) whether or not culturally neutral IQ tests can ever be constructed; and (b) whether statistically significant differences between populations are relevant to public policy. In the end, there may be an argument for not conducting IQ tests across racial and cultural groups, but there cannot be a reasoned argument for simply declaring á priori that there are no differences in IQ.

The key factor here is not whether the proponent agrees or disagrees with a study, assertion, argument, proposition or conclusion (because of what it says). It is the quality of the reasoning behind the agreement or disagreement, (why it says it) that is important. If the reasoning boils down to a general case of the following form: "X cannot be true because it ought not to be true," (or "Y must be true because it ought to be true") then the wishful (non)thinker is wallowing in the fallacy and fantasy world of argument to consequences.

A pernicious form of the argument to adverse consequences fallacy occurs when researchers engaged in some form of advocacy research, assume that results which do not agree with their cherished hypothesis cannot be "true". The individual in such circumstances is forced to contemplate a very unpleasant proposition, which might be put as follows: "My career to date has been based on false assumptions, and I have therefore wasted years of diligent effort."

Under such circumstances, the temptation is for the disillusioned advocacy-researcher to assume some methodological fallacy, rather than to seriously question his or her hypothesis. Disillusioned and desperate researchers redesign and repeat their research until they obtain the desired result. "Failed" surveys or experiments are not of course published in "the literature". Rather, they are discarded and are not ultimately reported to the research community. This phenomenon is sometimes known as "publication bias". Publication bias means that from time to time the corpus of knowledge in a particular discipline is distorted. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again," is probably not an advisable precept for a researcher who claims to be a disinterested seeker after truth.