Argument from authority
This article or section needs revision. More details should be given on the discussion page. Please help improve it, and then remove this tag.
This article or subsequent section is not sufficiently supported by evidence (e.g., anecdotal evidence). Information without sufficient evidence may be removed in the near future. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and adding good supporting evidence.
An argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin for "proof by deference") or argument from authority is an argument that seeks to prove a thesis by appealing to an authority, such as an expert or a superior. Since authority as such is not a guarantee of truth, it is not a logically compelling conclusion.
Rating
To be admissible, an authority argument must have the following characteristics:
- Authority is trustworthy because it has been proven.
- The authority is cited correctly.
- The authority has expertise in the relevant subject area.
- The general rules of reasoning were followed.
- Authorities who hold the opposing view, rather than simply ignoring them, are also cited and refuted.
Where these points are not met, the authority is unjustifiably invoked and it is a sham. The suspicion is that it is also an intentional fallacy or sophism.
Reconstruction Suggestions
In his introduction to logic, Wesley C. Salmon reconstructed the structure of authority arguments as a case of a "statistical syllogism," that is, an inductive argument that makes its conclusion at least probable:
| The overwhelming majority of the claims x makes about S are true. | |
| p is a statement of x about S | |
| p is true. |
In this form, the conclusion is correct, but not necessarily truth-preserving. Salmon also makes the demands that the authority must be correctly cited, that it must actually also be a professional authority (and not just a celebrity), that S must actually be the authority's field of expertise, that the authority might actually know about the truth of p if p is true, and that no equally appropriate authorities contradict p. Where the requirements are not met, there is for him a clear abuse of the argument form.
The figure consensus gentium is treated by Salmon as a special case of argumentum ad verecundiam, subject to the same conditions.
Recent systematic epistemology deals with criteria of epistemic justification for the acceptance of "authoritative" statements, especially from "experts", mainly in the context of social epistemology.
