Critical Thinking #12: Appeal to Authority
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- → brilliant.org/c...
The critical thinking miniseries was made possible by our viewers and listeners. To support more of this type of work, become a member or Patron at www.davidpakman... and / davidpakmanshow
-Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
-Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
-Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
-Support when you buy cryptocurrency: www.davidpakman...
-Follow David on Twitter: / dpakman
-Follow David on Instagram: / david.pakman
-Follow us on Steemit: steemit.com/@d...
-Discuss This on Reddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
-Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
-Get your TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
-Subscribe to The David Pakman Show for more: www.youtube.com...
-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!
Wow, this is a bastardization of what appeal to authority is. Appeal to authority means a topic is not specifically true because someone has "professional" knowledge on the topic. In fact the ONLY time you can absolutely trust an authority is when asking them about something they specifically did, witnessed or SPECIFICALLY know themselves (from first hand testing.)
(Critical Thinking assumes everyone is speaking the truth.)
For example, with COVID the doctors can give a separate answer with regard to the same question. Even though they are both experts. So do you trust the majority? No that's another fallacy. Ad-populum.
You have to dig down to specific instances with specific cases which can be falsified and verified in a repeatable manner.
You NEVER assume a source is 100% correct simply because they have credentials! That is insanity!
I know this information is all correct because I saw it on the David Pakman show
No way. These attempts to teach people critical thinking skills must have an underlying political agenda from this show. :P
Normally a fan of David's, so was excited when I found this series on critical thinking. The Appeal To Authority is always for me the shibboleth of someone who understands critical thinking , and David fails here. Appeal To Authority is a fallacy regardless of the expertise of the authority in question, because you should base opinions on facts and logic, not on assertions. If someone is genuinely an expert in a particular subject, then they would be able to explain why they make a particular claim, and why they reject an alternative claim. If they can't, then there is no reason to listen to their claim.
The fact that 3% of scientists believe X and 97% of scientists believe not-X doesn't make the 3% wrong or even probably wrong. They are either wrong or right, and the best way of determining which is to look at their evidence and their argument. The problem occurs when people who have no expertise in a subject want a shorthand heuristic for knowing which authority to believe, so they try and use scientific consensus as a tool. Sometimes this will work, maybe even most of the time, but it isn't foolproof, and the fallacy comes into play by assuming that it is.
THANK YOU. You basically articulated what I've been trying to put into words for a long time now.
Well said. It's funny how he couldn't get out of this video without committing a logical fallacy.
This isn’t actually true to the meaning he is citing. This is often the direct definition. The problem he runs into is that while this is the accurate use of the term “appeal to authority fallacy”, that doesn’t mean an appeal to a real authority is automatically correct. In the same way other fallacies are fallacies because you can create a scenario where the premises don’t lead to the conclusion, the same is true when citing a real authority.
@@asdrt6405 I don’t think he’s acting dishonestly, I think people really should rely on some level of fallacious activity to simplify when they don’t have an alternative. If two people can’t grasp quantum physics at all and no expert could articulate it to full understanding, relying on an experts simplifications is a good tool. The same applies to many other fallacies. Slippery slope is a fallacy, but often comes true. Division/composition is often true. Appeals to nature are usually mostly true. Experts are usually correct.
Also the term he’s citing does usually have the exact definition from the video. You can argue experts aren’t always correct, but the fallacy in question might just be poorly named.
@@bigboy2217 I'm not sure this is the accurate definition. The way I was taught it - and yes, I'm aware of the irony here - is that an appeal to authority is the use of an authority as proof in itself of a claim. The use of a false authority would surely just be an unsupported assertion. The underlying reason why appeal to authority is a fallacy is because it doesn't supply direct proof for the claim, and instead relies on the testimony of an authority.
Did I just watch a video endorsing appeal to authority? Even proponents of appeal to authority agree that every party discussing the argument must agree that the authority is valid, therefore not making it a valid argument when proposing something open endedly
Bingo
One does not need to be a science denier to disagree with the scientific consensus. If that were so then all scientific progress would be made by science deniers, which is absurd. Progress comes about when consensus shifts as a result of new evidence or as a result of reinterpreting existing evidence. At the beginning of such a shift, the people who have considered the new evidence will know that the consensus is wrong.
There plenty of doubt about scientific community. First of all the money which flows through the community for having reached census on topics. Second the fact that they hold essentially a monopoly on the ability to first hand see much of the physical evidence of the claim. Meaning we must take them at their word for their claims. Also that they are am echo chamber within their class.
Furthermore at one point it was scientific census the world was flat. It wasn't until a minority disagreed with this that things began to change. So to write off the minority as false bit to accept a majority which you can not fact check for yourself is fallacious. To claim to have the knowledge that only they actually may have but chose to impart on you is fallacious.
But Ben Shapiro said!!!
enginesnblades His wife is a doctor you know.
What's this in reference to? Transgender people? I'm curious if you have an instance where Ben Shapiro used an Appeal to Authority fallacy, or if you're just saying that to feel better. Because someone saying, "there are more than 2 genders, because this professor of *sociology* is a scientist and she says there definitely is more than 2 genders!" then you're on the opposite side of the table.
Maybe you're arguing something else. Maybe I'm wrong. Do tell. 1 year later lol.
Ben is not smart enough, or just really religious
@@teafuse583 "Smart enough" in what context? You're also saying a religious person can't be smart/logical? The only reason we have freedoms, natural rights and abolished slavery & pedophilia in the west is because of Judeo-Christian morals.
Ever heard of Francis Collins? He was the director of the Human Genome Project, and he's a Christian. They were the first to map the human genome. Pretty big deal. They were working on ways to cure cancer, which Christopher Hitchens was dying from, at the time. They were good friends, despite their different beliefs.
If you don't belief in a literal God or afterlife, then that seems more than logical. I'm not telling you that you ought to take a giant leap of faith into the absurd, and believe in God - as Soren Kierkegaard would say - but if you're further than agnostic/atheist and into the realm of anti-theism, then I think you're a complete fool. Even Friedrich Nietzsche knew how vital religion was, not that he advocated for Christianity/religion. he wanted to dismantle it, for something new. But you might want to read the rest of "God is dead", from the Gay Science, Aphorism 125, I believe. "God is dead" isn't an anti-theist, Bill Maher, "take that, Jesus!" statement. He's saying Christianity killed itself, because of its insistence on truth, and there's no longer a logical reason to believe in a literal God - what sacred games must be invent? If you don't have a replacement, and you think the point of life is just materialism, hedonism and big government; then let's just say I'm in a different camp than you. Whether or not I believe there's a literal Creator or afterlife.
Appeals to Authority is rough in the academia world. Ideally, a good scientist does not appeal to any one person, but appeals to the science itself, the communities of science, the peer revision process of science, and gathering and dissemination of science. The problem is that scientific literature is exhaustively expansive. I know more than a few people who do take short cuts in data gathering, collecting, and reporting. And many not out of malice, but rather the need to get work done can create lapse of incorrect data.
For me, a good appeal to authority cities sources and ideally tests for validity before using clout. But, citing every statement you make doesn't always make for enjoyable conversation.
Science is often a practice of paralysis through analysis. You can drive yourself crazy with 'but what if. . . '
well the point of skepticism is not to believe just anything you hear, youre supposed to test things yourself for the clearest answers, but 'if youre going to discuss/debate/learn from other people take it with a grain of salt, know the sources of the things that stand out in particular at least, and do your own research about it. many things remain unanswered and are untestable at this point anyway, so bias cant be av'oided entirely anyway.
i 'hate ''when people talk so highly 'of scienc'e, as like this infallible thing, but then they forget axioms change and we dont even know how set in stone anything actually is. to me, i pursue truth, not the scientific method. and if theres a word i exonerate, it is that one. truth. a person with their short-sighted human brain came up with the current system for pursuing truth, the scientific method, one day we may get a better one.
im not here to tell people what to believe, but there are things that legit urk me about academia.
im open to debate, btw.
@@wolfbeam9169 I think you kinda missed the point as to what I was talking about here. The actual process to go through a scientific method is very very VERY LONG if done right. And there are many many MANY topics that use some form of goverance such as the scientific method to get to peer reviewed findings. For you to not to appeal to authority on anything academic or professionally found or created, you have to truely have question every finding for every topic ever. You are going to make short cuts, you are going to assume something is right even if you didn't take the time to be skeptical. You are going to appeal at some point at some time. Often appeals to are more of the rule than the exception. And you would hope that even in science, those appeals don't happen, but they do. The hope is that peer revision and repeat findings catches these appeals.
The point I am trying to make is that true skeptism is a muscle that can not flexed all the time. When working on something that is within your domain however, be aware that what is said to be infallable may just have just been appeal rather than actual test.
I’m confused bc so & so Authority says something than the community of other authorities peer reviewed & verified to point that’s it’s generally accepted as fact seems to open u up to bandwagon fallacy. Help need clarification.
Nice choice of numbers - 3% vs 97% of scientists - the most commonly cited numbers about climate scientists accepting climate change.
FWIW that was a few years ago. It’s now more like 1% vs 99%.
Michael Rudge Oil companies should be outlawed, they kill innocent wildlife and poison our air & water. Scott Pruitt, Myron Ebell are all criminals.
pinochet pilot #666
Possibly. But there is also a 97-3 ratio not regarding scientists, but regarding papers themselves. 97% of papers/studies published on the topic agree with climate change.
That is exactly what I said
And yet despite any numbers one wants to throw around, climate change is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. That is a fact. There is no known natural cause for this acceleration.
No argument, in my opinion, should rely on appeals to authority. A good argument needs to expand beyond what people believe, regardless of how qualified they are.
Truth stands no matter who says it
Why are each of the scientists holding a loaf of French bread? This causes me to doubt their reliability. QED
How is youtube not banning this?
Is he attempting to change the definition of Athority fallacy because it he's using it to validate something ?
Entire video derails at roughly 50 seconds in. He's talking about citing a bad source, not addressing the fallacy at hand. Everything after that seems to be a propagation of a mesh of the argument form authority mixed with ad populum... Why, David? Is this because orange man bad?
3:44...well, that might not be true either. Appealing to majorities when it comes to science isn't always appropriate as the movements of the moment may hold sway.
When people appeal to a "scientific consensus", I have to ask: Has there ever been a scientific consensus that disagreed with a previous scientific consensus?
Well yes, how else can science progress if the consensus on a matter never changes?
@Allen_ 85 no, trust scientific findings tentatively, keeping in mind that new discoveries can show a previous understanding to be inaccurate, or confirm more strongly that the previous understanding is accurate.
@@brucewayne7875 correct,
But that’s why it’s not an argument, it’s an appeal. Arguments must be formed and presented, not deferred to someone/something else.
@@eclipsewrecker I'm not sure why it matters that what I said is not a formal argument. So what?
@@brucewayne7875 I apologize if I misunderstood this topic. I thought that logical fallacies were in reference to formal arguments; therefore, I believed that this thread was about appealing to authority in that context.
And the crazy circle continues. David Pakman, an internet authority, tells me to trust anyone who has a PhD. And of course, I'm supposed to trust this because David says so. Oy vey.
Claims of consensus are often manufactured. For example the Cook 'study' on global warming, which on closer inspection revealed nothing near 97% consensus, but rather something closer to a third once you included those he removed from the denominator. Either way, it was a rather dubious approach to the measurement of opinion since he attempted to infer scientists' opinions from their published papers rather than directly surveying them. Surveys have shown nothing near what he claimed. For example: www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/new_peerreviewed_study_reveals_majority_of_scientists_are_skeptical_of_global_warming_crisis.html
I liked the covert injection of the climate change debate into your example.
Same, although more recent studies have shown that the consensus on the causes of climate change is now up around 99%.
Wow, the explanation of appeal to authority in this video is itself appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is acceptance of statements as true without supporting evidence, relying on the person's credentials instead as supporting evidence. Major fail here.
I see a glaring appeal to authority error in this video. Claiming that a PhD means someone is qualified in anything other than brown-nosing? Pfft!
And Beethoven was influenced by Mozart in the beginning, but then switched to Handel when Haydn introduced him to that bigwig.
Wish you'd produce more quality content like this instead of politically motivated clicky click stuff these days, this critical thinking series is the best!
I felt like the previous episode might have been a bit sparse in its discussion of when and how an argumentum ad populum might be relevant in a sound argument, like when people say "nearly all doctors agree that..." or "anyone who has been to the grand canyon will tell you". I think this episode helps to square that away.
T D Four out of five New York doctors .... (from early cigarette ads).
Your "doctors" comment reminded me of this.
A good example of appealing to authority is in the movie 'God's Not Dead', when Kevin Sorbo's Professor Radisson uses a quote by Stephen Hawking to refute Josh Wheaton's claim of the existence of God.
I'm unsure what makes this true: "Almost anything that a PhD musicologist says about Beethoven's influences is probably true."
And what makes this false: "Almost anything that someone says about Beethoven's influences, who looked it up online is probably true."
To me both of these look like unfounded statements in their current form. They need to be proven first to be able to rely upon as true premises.
Additionally: notice that these sentences are not specific: they needs clarification about what can fit into the "Almost anything" part, and what probability are we talking about when we say "probably true". Is 20% probable? Or is it more than 50%? or is it around 70-80 or 95%?
Lets say I guess the number is 95%. So when I hear something from a scientist, i roll a 100 sided dice, and if the number is below 95 then I take what they said as true? Or how do I distinguish the 5% from the 95%?
There are a lot of similar unexplained/unfounded claims in this video.
It might look like Im trolling, but in reality this is how real science works: you need to be absolutely exact in order for the equation to work. You cant just guess the unknown parts.
And that is one of the main difference between science and pseudo-science.
Also, i cant help but to comment on the burden of proof fallacy fallacy what was committed here: I dont think there is ever a burden of proof on someone who is sceptic about something, especially not when he is sceptic about an authority whos main argument is: Im an authority.
Its the opposite: the sceptic is entitled for a proof if someone wants him to believe.
In this case certainly an appeal to popularity argument (among authorities) cannot be taken as proof. The consensus of scientists is really, REALLY not what science is about. (At least not what i consider science: its more like a certain way of approach of the topic, or a set of rules, in order to get reliable statements.)
When I first saw the thumbnail for these vids, I thought it said 'critical thinking ministries' :-D
What's the name of the logical fallacy where people just deny the existence of evidence in front of them?
You are using the same fallacy. “If he didn’t go to school for that he can’t know?”
I like the rest of this series, but this one seems bungled. An appeal to authority is not the fallacy of claiming someone as an authority who really isn't. It's presenting someone else's opinion that X is true as evidence for the truth of X in a situation where it is reasonable to determine the truth of X based instead on an evaluation of the evidence. Let's say my friend says that he shouldn't take Drug A because it would cause harmful side effects when taken with Drug B, which he's also taking. I ask "How do you know that?" and he says "My doctor said so." There's no fallacy here because we're not in any position to evaluate the evidence for those drugs having those properties, so it makes sense to rely on the expertise of someone who is. However, if I'm a medical researcher looking to demonstrate to my peers in the scientific community that Drug A causes harmful side effects when taken with Drug B, and the only evidence I provide in my paper consists of quotations from other experts agreeing with me, then this *is* an "appeal to authority" fallacy. The medical research community *is* in a position to judge the question based on evidence and reasoning (like, say, the results of an experiment), so if I want to convince them, I need to provide that, not just an argument of the form "X says so, and X generally knows what he's talking about in this area."
Two more reasons this *can* be a fallacy even when the "authority" being appealed to really is an expert on the issue:
-Experts may be more likely to be right than non-experts, but they can be wrong (see the previous video on the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy). Everyone is fallible. So the fact that someone else thinks X is never definitive proof that X is true.
-If the experts themselves allowed appeals to authority to count as valid arguments, you would have "groupthink." Everybody believes X because everybody else believes X, and since nobody ever bothers to look at the evidence for or against X, they have no way of ever realizing that they are all wrong.
Wait, no. Deferance to authority is still a fallacy even if the authority has good track record. Even if they are accepted by most people as an export...or accepted by other experts as one, Or whatever.
This will help Average South African
The problem I have experienced is conflict of interest and that is involved. A university might have a wing of its science faculty paid for by a pharmaceutical company. Perhaps there is no evidence of coercion. It’s reasonable to suggest that staff might bend the pharmaceutical company’s way of seeing things
but but but my .................Lesbian Dance Theory, social studies sociologist professor said hate speech is a so mysognistically racist like like like
Fallacies are frustrating because most of them function on a scientific basis on “this reasoning doesn’t PROVE x argument”. So for example appeals to nature are wrong, not because every person that makes the appeal to nature reaches the wrong conclusion, but because we can create hypothetical or real life examples where appeals to nature have been incorrect. Because of that we can’t assume the appeal to prove the argument.
The issue is that this logic is often applicable in many, many cases. And I don’t think each fallacy is equal in its application. For example, division/composition. Not every person that identifies as right wing in the US is pro life, so you can’t prove somebody is pro life by them claiming they are right wing. However it’s a reasonable conclusion. Meanwhile something like strawman or ad hom are more accurately described as dishonest debate tactics.
A lot of people think appeal to authority is actually any expert being an expert doesn’t make their claims about their expertise true. I’d argue that, in the spirit of what most fallacies do, that even an honest expert on something can be wrong about the thing. That you still have an obligation to argue a claim. Since most discussion is far less dry and far more loose appeals to authority in this regard it wouldn’t be bad for two ignorant people to listen to the expert, but hopefully the expert can explain it sufficiently. I say that because I don’t see a lot of people actually use the authority appeal in regards to fake experts, they claim real appeals to real authorities are not automatically true also. Which, funny enough, is a fact.
Somebody posted numbers of immigration crimes on a facebook site. Me: What is the source? He: Donald Trump, state of the union speech.
What about this example is it an appeal to authority fallacy too ?
Doctor X, expert in Biochemistry, gives statements about a pandemie and how to avoid getting sick with the virus.
the Doctor X's filed is Biochemistry, but the Virus lays in Virology.
I would say the two overlap a bit where you would not necessarily be stepping on someone's toes; especially if the virologists agree.
"To me,consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects." Margaret Thatcher.
If you want to understand the consensus of climate change, simply follow the trail of money in the form of government grants. Money.... its always as simple as the money.
3:10 "Scientific Expert"
*Hmmm i think theres a word for that*
2:54 Not if they're Political. Then you just double down or find new evidence to confirm your biases
I hope you are active. There is this puzzle in my head, consider this.
P0: The education system has a lot of flaws
P1: The US department of education are experts on education
P2: The US department of education support the education system
P3: The majority of the people are not experts on education
P4: The majority of the people are against the educational system
Conclusion: the educational system should be supported because the US department of education, experts on the subject, supports it
Is this a legitmate appeal to authority?
What i am trying to say here is that the US government supports a flawed education system, while the majority of people are agajnst the education system because of the flaws.
btw i do not know if the premises are true. But is this argument valid?
What If David Pakman intentionally made an appeal to authority fallacy to test his viewers on their ability to detect it?
Then, he would have more respect.
What if it was used unironically
Nice illustrations!
How do we know the SPLC is a authority worth citing when they hesitant to put Louis Farrakhan and BDS movement on their hate list?
And when they put Maajid Nawaz on the anti-Muslim list.
coldwar45 like what the fuck was that? They quoted him saying that all Islamism was dangerous as so-called “evidence”.
+The Pragmatic Slytherin After they did that I dropped all support of them.
funny that on a video dedicated to critical thinking, you use a strawman argument to tarnish an entire organization, lol.
SPLC has a bio of Farrakhan with some quite unflattering quotes listed about Jewish people. They don't appear to be friendly to Farrakhan.
I only see criticisms related to SPLC on the BDS movement relative to a Fox News article. I am not exactly convinced that Fox News would have a more accurate view on hate groups than SPLC, the specialists on the matter that generally receive praise/awards on the subject. SPLC could be wrong on BDS, since I don't see much listed on their website about BDS. Being wrong by omission on one topic isn't a strong case to throw them out entirely as a resource on the subject of hate groups, though. Even so, possibly you are wrong about BDS being a hate group and SPLC is actually correct. Criticism of a nation founded on Judaism, Israel, is not necessarily anti-Semitic. Still, thoughts on Israel are very contentious and complex.
Also, it doesn't sound like a critical thinking attitude expressed towards SPLC, more of an emotional one.