Thanks! I mostly make these for my students and for others to use as teaching/ learning resources. I’d love more views but I don’t really know how a channel even blows up. I had some success posting on Reddit a while back but then they started getting mad and removing stuff because they don’t like self promotion.
Ive always understood it as this: Most information used to support a claim is ultimately derived from some form of authority. Ex. Historical records/documentation or scientific studies, as they were written by experts on the respective subjects (I’ve had people tell me I was appealing to authority by merely listing sources, such as names of experts and their works, as a window to pursue further research). Relying on experts and citing their work to derive information is one thing, as the information should stand on its own regardless of who wrote/compiled it. It’s another when you rely solely on the status of an expert as a means to validate the claim.
Lay people generally don't have access to first hand information, so an argument among non-experts must rely on second hand sources or the opinions of experts to a large extent.
Taking Firearm advice from Police, they are notorious for their lack of Firearm training and marksmanship skills . I'd probably add legal advice from a Cop.too.😂
This is a slightly flawed video. While the appeal to authority argument is (often) considered an informal fallacy, it is always considered fallacious to argue for absolute/high-degree conclusions under particular sets of circumstance via the appeal to authority. People themselves are not usually the evidence; it is the evidence they supply that is usually the evidence (although this is not always the case). This misunderstanding is one of the more serious issues with epistemology, and has lead to issues with scientific journals, popular science, the education system, etc. Additionally, the appeal to consensus/argumentum ad populum was used here to argue against a misuse of the fallacy; it doesn't make sense in the argument provided as it was appealed to as a trump card/argument (high degree), not simply as a form of counter-evidence that requires measured analysis. The epistemic answer would be to appeal to the data itself, not the authorities presenting it; regardless of their numbers. Social numbers can be wrong; they are not considered a form of high-degree evidence in epistemology. I will give praise however to the focus on distinctions between formal and informal fallacies, and how this fallacy is often applied erroneously to shut down discussions on evidence.
Thanks for your comment! I'm very late to replying. I think I agree with most of what you're saying and I don't think I say otherwise in the video. I don't suggest using expert testimony for "absolute" conclusions. You say "People themselves are not usually the evidence." I agree that often they are not the evidence. And I think this takes us to some debatable issues in the epistemology of testimony. However, testimony does form the basis of many (if not most) of our beliefs. We don't directly experience or test most things. We read about them in various sources (a form of testimony) and tentatively trust those sources. You know that George Washington was the first US President based on lots of testimony about sources of historical evidence. Lastly, I don't think I committed the appeal to consensus or appeal to popularity fallacy. In discussing the complexity of using expert testimony as evidence, I said "Even the majority of experts can get things wrong. However, when the overwhelming majority of experts agree on a topic, that strengthens the support for it." Saying that expert consensus "strengthens support" for something is a relatively modest claim here. I wasn't using it as a trump card in an argument. In fact, I suggested that appealing to experts as a trump card (to dismiss counter evidence) *is* part of the fallacy.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff " However, testimony does form the basis of many (if not most) of our beliefs" Only because of trust not because its actual proof you are confusing trust with evidence backing up said trust " I don't think I committed the appeal to consensus or appeal to popularity fallacy" arguing that a majority of experts agree therefore is true is a fallacy.
@@C3l3bi1 thanks for your comments. But I don’t know why you’re saying I said those thing. I never used said anything about “proof.” And I never said “majority experts agree therefore it’s true.” I agree that would be fallacious.
You're right that appealing to the masses (or appeal to popularity) is a fallacy. Though I think there's some nuance that's important here and I don't think I committed that fallacy. First, believing genuine experts on a topic within their area of expertise is different than believing an average Joe on some random topic. Appeal to the masses fallacy is highly problematic because popular belief among the general population is highly unreliable. "Everyone believes it" is just not good evidence for a claim. However, consensus amongst experts is at least somewhat reliable. The experts study a particular issue in depth. So if they all agree on a claim (in their area of expertise) then they probably all believe it for at least some good reason. Of course, they can be mistaken, which is why I said, "Even the majority of experts can get things wrong. However, when the overwhelming majority of experts agree on a topic, that strengthens the support for it." To say it "strengthens support" is a modest claim. I'm simply saying that experts disagreeing is one reason to be skeptical of expert testimony and expert consensus is one thing that strengthens support for their testimony. A few people have disagreed with my analysis in my fallacy videos. I'm ok with that. There's room for reasonable disagreement because we're getting into issues in epistemology which can be controversial. But that's part of why I think this is important. If something is a debated issue in epistemology, it's probably a mistake to make oversimplified blanket claims about how the fallacies work. (See what I did there?)
@@ThinkingAboutStuff " general population is highly unreliable. " How so? by whose standard? if you did what most people do u could do decently for yourself in life. "However, when the overwhelming majority of experts agree on a topic, that strengthens the support for it." To say it "strengthens support" Only if you trust said experts to be honest and not a hivemind of rehashed opinions, its no different then trusting a king.
@@C3l3bi1 “if you did what most people do you could do decently for yourself.” Great point! I definitely over stated when I said “highly unreliable.” Regarding my “strengthens support” comment: you’re right to be mindful of the possibility that a group of supposed experts could fall prey to group think. And if you have reason to suspect that all of the experts on something are compromised in this way, then you have reason to be skeptical of their testimony. (In philosophy we call that having a “defeater” for the evidence.) But by saying that the majority of experts agreeing “strengthens support” for the claim I’m making a relatively weak claim. I’m saying that expert consensus is better evidence than controversial/debated expert testimony. And again, none of this is really relevant if you have access to, and the ability to understand, the direct evidence. Expert testimony is merely one form of indirect evidence. And I warn in the video that it should not be used as a way to dismiss direct evidence.
Regarding evolution, although Richard Dawkins is not the sole source of expertise, the consensus among professional biologists is that evolution is a FACT. In this case, there is a huge burden of proof on creationists to debunk evolution. A scientific consensus among all the experts is pretty solid. Appealing to the authority of one expert is much more iffy. The problem with these science debates, is that non-scientists don't have access to all the evidence, and they usually overestimate the level of mastery they do have over the subject at hand.
This is wrong. Expert testimony is evidence, but evidence is not proof. A rational person should not believe something is true just because an expert said so.
I'm a bit confused. I don't think I used the word "proof" at all. I tried to be careful to emphasize only that expert testimony counts as some evidence. In the Dawkins example I said the conclusion is overstated because "the fact that an expert says it's true does not guarantee that it is true" and only that it's ok to use that testimony as "a source of evidence."
@@ThinkingAboutStuff You said "it's often quite reasonable to trust what they say", but the only instances in which a reasonable person should trust what an expert says is when that has an exceptional chance of being true, and that cannot be determined merely by an expert saying that it is true. Even if we knew that experts told the truth 99% of the time, in any given instance we cannot know beforehand if we are in the 99% or the 1%. A reasonable person doesn't rely on luck, otherwise we could say that it's reasonable to play Russian roulette, because we would win often. Experts should not be trusted by default. If an expert says X is true, concluding that we should trust the expert and conclude that X is true is a *mistake* . Concluding that X is likely to be true is different and is the opposite of trust. Even if I'm likely to win a round of Russian roulette, there's no way I'm going to trust that, as no rational person should.
@@felipec You accuse the presenter of attributing a higher degree of certainty than he is in fact claiming. You state that "expert testimony is evidence, but evidence is not proof." That's true -- but no one is saying that it is. You say that "(e)xperts should not be trusted by default." You’re right. But at no point does the presenter suggest that they should be. By mischaracterizing the position of your interlocutor, you're arguing against a position that he has not taken. In so doing, you've committed a strawman fallacy.
@@felipec No, I'm not denying he said that. What I'm challenging is your implication that "trust" in a claim is equivalent to "proof." These are not the same. It may seem subtle, but it's an important distinction. I trust in a lot of things, but I don't think we can be absolutely certain of anything. In other words, proof -- which I take to mean perfect confidence in a given assertion -- is a level of confidence that is functionally unattainable. Trust -- meaning having a relatively high level of confidence regarding a claim -- does not rise to that level. It's reasonable to trust that a consensus view of experts in a given field is based on sufficiently persuasive evidence without having to earn an advanced degree in that field so I can test the assertion for myself. This is not the same as saying that I believe that their contention has been proven to be true. So my objection to your comment was the conflation of "trust" and "proof," two levels of confidence that are not the same.
Appeal to authority in my opinion does not necessarily have to be a fallacy.If your'e pulled over by somebody who presents themselves as a police officers yet they don't present any form of badge you are totally 110% in the right to tell that person to go f**k off and to go get lost.That might be appeal to authority but I don't think that anybody is necessarily in the wrong for doing that.
No that's not an appeal to authority fallacy. In that hypothetical the main issue is whether they can arrest you or not. Within law it is required for the arrester to provide that they have the authority to do so. There is still a reason, therefore asking for a badge is not fallacious.
@@garynaccarato4606 you don't understand what is meant by an appeal to authority being pulled over by a policeman who won't identify themselves has got nothing to do with this philosophical point 🤣
This shit is so high quality, I am bewildered by the lack of views. I have a feeling this channel will blow up soon.
Thanks! I mostly make these for my students and for others to use as teaching/ learning resources. I’d love more views but I don’t really know how a channel even blows up. I had some success posting on Reddit a while back but then they started getting mad and removing stuff because they don’t like self promotion.
Ive always understood it as this:
Most information used to support a claim is ultimately derived from some form of authority. Ex. Historical records/documentation or scientific studies, as they were written by experts on the respective subjects (I’ve had people tell me I was appealing to authority by merely listing sources, such as names of experts and their works, as a window to pursue further research).
Relying on experts and citing their work to derive information is one thing, as the information should stand on its own regardless of who wrote/compiled it. It’s another when you rely solely on the status of an expert as a means to validate the claim.
Lay people generally don't have access to first hand information, so an argument among non-experts must rely on second hand sources or the opinions of experts to a large extent.
What is a good example for appeal to authority fallacies and using a cop?
Taking Firearm advice from Police, they are notorious for their lack of Firearm training and marksmanship skills . I'd probably add legal advice from a Cop.too.😂
This is a slightly flawed video. While the appeal to authority argument is (often) considered an informal fallacy, it is always considered fallacious to argue for absolute/high-degree conclusions under particular sets of circumstance via the appeal to authority. People themselves are not usually the evidence; it is the evidence they supply that is usually the evidence (although this is not always the case). This misunderstanding is one of the more serious issues with epistemology, and has lead to issues with scientific journals, popular science, the education system, etc.
Additionally, the appeal to consensus/argumentum ad populum was used here to argue against a misuse of the fallacy; it doesn't make sense in the argument provided as it was appealed to as a trump card/argument (high degree), not simply as a form of counter-evidence that requires measured analysis. The epistemic answer would be to appeal to the data itself, not the authorities presenting it; regardless of their numbers. Social numbers can be wrong; they are not considered a form of high-degree evidence in epistemology. I will give praise however to the focus on distinctions between formal and informal fallacies, and how this fallacy is often applied erroneously to shut down discussions on evidence.
Thanks for your comment! I'm very late to replying.
I think I agree with most of what you're saying and I don't think I say otherwise in the video. I don't suggest using expert testimony for "absolute" conclusions.
You say "People themselves are not usually the evidence." I agree that often they are not the evidence. And I think this takes us to some debatable issues in the epistemology of testimony. However, testimony does form the basis of many (if not most) of our beliefs. We don't directly experience or test most things. We read about them in various sources (a form of testimony) and tentatively trust those sources. You know that George Washington was the first US President based on lots of testimony about sources of historical evidence.
Lastly, I don't think I committed the appeal to consensus or appeal to popularity fallacy. In discussing the complexity of using expert testimony as evidence, I said "Even the majority of experts can get things wrong. However, when the overwhelming majority of experts agree on a topic, that strengthens the support for it." Saying that expert consensus "strengthens support" for something is a relatively modest claim here. I wasn't using it as a trump card in an argument. In fact, I suggested that appealing to experts as a trump card (to dismiss counter evidence) *is* part of the fallacy.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff " However, testimony does form the basis of many (if not most) of our beliefs"
Only because of trust not because its actual proof
you are confusing trust with evidence backing up said trust
" I don't think I committed the appeal to consensus or appeal to popularity fallacy"
arguing that a majority of experts agree therefore is true is a fallacy.
@@C3l3bi1 thanks for your comments. But I don’t know why you’re saying I said those thing. I never used said anything about “proof.” And I never said “majority experts agree therefore it’s true.” I agree that would be fallacious.
Wouldn't appealing to the masses be a fallacy?
You're right that appealing to the masses (or appeal to popularity) is a fallacy. Though I think there's some nuance that's important here and I don't think I committed that fallacy.
First, believing genuine experts on a topic within their area of expertise is different than believing an average Joe on some random topic. Appeal to the masses fallacy is highly problematic because popular belief among the general population is highly unreliable. "Everyone believes it" is just not good evidence for a claim. However, consensus amongst experts is at least somewhat reliable. The experts study a particular issue in depth. So if they all agree on a claim (in their area of expertise) then they probably all believe it for at least some good reason. Of course, they can be mistaken, which is why I said, "Even the majority of experts can get things wrong. However, when the overwhelming majority of experts agree on a topic, that strengthens the support for it." To say it "strengthens support" is a modest claim. I'm simply saying that experts disagreeing is one reason to be skeptical of expert testimony and expert consensus is one thing that strengthens support for their testimony.
A few people have disagreed with my analysis in my fallacy videos. I'm ok with that. There's room for reasonable disagreement because we're getting into issues in epistemology which can be controversial. But that's part of why I think this is important. If something is a debated issue in epistemology, it's probably a mistake to make oversimplified blanket claims about how the fallacies work. (See what I did there?)
@@ThinkingAboutStuff " general population is highly unreliable. "
How so? by whose standard?
if you did what most people do u could do decently for yourself in life.
"However, when the overwhelming majority of experts agree on a topic, that strengthens the support for it." To say it "strengthens support"
Only if you trust said experts to be honest and not a hivemind of rehashed opinions, its no different then trusting a king.
@@C3l3bi1 “if you did what most people do you could do decently for yourself.” Great point! I definitely over stated when I said “highly unreliable.”
Regarding my “strengthens support” comment: you’re right to be mindful of the possibility that a group of supposed experts could fall prey to group think. And if you have reason to suspect that all of the experts on something are compromised in this way, then you have reason to be skeptical of their testimony. (In philosophy we call that having a “defeater” for the evidence.)
But by saying that the majority of experts agreeing “strengthens support” for the claim I’m making a relatively weak claim. I’m saying that expert consensus is better evidence than controversial/debated expert testimony.
And again, none of this is really relevant if you have access to, and the ability to understand, the direct evidence. Expert testimony is merely one form of indirect evidence. And I warn in the video that it should not be used as a way to dismiss direct evidence.
Regarding evolution, although Richard Dawkins is not the sole source of expertise, the consensus among professional biologists is that evolution is a FACT. In this case, there is a huge burden of proof on creationists to debunk evolution. A scientific consensus among all the experts is pretty solid. Appealing to the authority of one expert is much more iffy. The problem with these science debates, is that non-scientists don't have access to all the evidence, and they usually overestimate the level of mastery they do have over the subject at hand.
All appeals to an authority are fallacious.
No they aren't
@@Ana_crusis yes they are
This is wrong. Expert testimony is evidence, but evidence is not proof. A rational person should not believe something is true just because an expert said so.
I'm a bit confused. I don't think I used the word "proof" at all. I tried to be careful to emphasize only that expert testimony counts as some evidence. In the Dawkins example I said the conclusion is overstated because "the fact that an expert says it's true does not guarantee that it is true" and only that it's ok to use that testimony as "a source of evidence."
@@ThinkingAboutStuff You said "it's often quite reasonable to trust what they say", but the only instances in which a reasonable person should trust what an expert says is when that has an exceptional chance of being true, and that cannot be determined merely by an expert saying that it is true.
Even if we knew that experts told the truth 99% of the time, in any given instance we cannot know beforehand if we are in the 99% or the 1%. A reasonable person doesn't rely on luck, otherwise we could say that it's reasonable to play Russian roulette, because we would win often.
Experts should not be trusted by default. If an expert says X is true, concluding that we should trust the expert and conclude that X is true is a *mistake* . Concluding that X is likely to be true is different and is the opposite of trust.
Even if I'm likely to win a round of Russian roulette, there's no way I'm going to trust that, as no rational person should.
@@felipec You accuse the presenter of attributing a higher degree of certainty than he is in fact claiming. You state that "expert testimony is evidence, but evidence is not proof." That's true -- but no one is saying that it is. You say that "(e)xperts should not be trusted by default." You’re right. But at no point does the presenter suggest that they should be.
By mischaracterizing the position of your interlocutor, you're arguing against a position that he has not taken. In so doing, you've committed a strawman fallacy.
@@stefanbjarnason251 The author *literally* said "it's often quite reasonable to trust what they say". Are you denying he said that?
@@felipec No, I'm not denying he said that. What I'm challenging is your implication that "trust" in a claim is equivalent to "proof." These are not the same.
It may seem subtle, but it's an important distinction. I trust in a lot of things, but I don't think we can be absolutely certain of anything. In other words, proof -- which I take to mean perfect confidence in a given assertion -- is a level of confidence that is functionally unattainable. Trust -- meaning having a relatively high level of confidence regarding a claim -- does not rise to that level.
It's reasonable to trust that a consensus view of experts in a given field is based on sufficiently persuasive evidence without having to earn an advanced degree in that field so I can test the assertion for myself. This is not the same as saying that I believe that their contention has been proven to be true.
So my objection to your comment was the conflation of "trust" and "proof," two levels of confidence that are not the same.
Appeal to authority in my opinion does not necessarily have to be a fallacy.If your'e pulled over by somebody who presents themselves as a police officers yet they don't present any form of badge you are totally 110% in the right to tell that person to go f**k off and to go get lost.That might be appeal to authority but I don't think that anybody is necessarily in the wrong for doing that.
No that's not an appeal to authority fallacy. In that hypothetical the main issue is whether they can arrest you or not. Within law it is required for the arrester to provide that they have the authority to do so. There is still a reason, therefore asking for a badge is not fallacious.
@@garynaccarato4606 you don't understand what is meant by an appeal to authority being pulled over by a policeman who won't identify themselves has got nothing to do with this philosophical point 🤣