Argument from authority fallacy - Educate yoursel!!!!

Very common argument /logical fallacy -> ignore logic and deflect to an untouchable authority (often stats are used for this - and we all know that stats are ...er... at best unrelaiable in argument)

I do disagree with the valid form aspect below that descfribes 'consensus' as being a necessary part of the argument.  Logic is not consensus; not democratic - either right, wrong or indeterminant

Argument from authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is an inductive-reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.^[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously: either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.^[1][2][3]

Contents [hide] 1 Forms 1.1 Fallacious appeal to authority 2 See also 3 References

[edit] Forms

The argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) can take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure: ^[1]

Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.

A says P about subject matter S.

Therefore, P is correct.

The strength of this authoritative argument depends upon two factors: ^[1][2]

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

The two factors — legitimate expertise and expert consensus — can be incorporated to the structure of the statistical syllogism, in which case, the argument from authority can be structured thus: ^[2]

X holds that A is true.

X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.

The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.

Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.

[edit] Fallacious appeal to authority

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism.^[1][2] First, when the inference fails to meet the first condition (inexpert authority), it is an appeal to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.^[3]
Second, because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument — wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises — it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.^[2] Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur, because, although the inductive argument might have merit — either probabilistic or statistical — the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.^[4][5]