Ad Verecundiam (Argument from Authority) Explained with Examples
Abstract: The argument from appeal to authority, the ad
verecundiam fallacy, is characterized with examples and shown to be a
fallacy when the appeal is to an irrelevant authority and nonfallacious when
the appeal is to a relevant authority. Many examples of both types are
analyzed.
The Argumentum ad
Verecundiam Fallacy Defined and Explained
Argumentum ad Verecundiam Fallacy (argument from
inappropriate authority): an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside
of the authority's special field of expertise.
From a logical point of view, anyone is free to express opinions or
advice about what is thought true; however, the fallacy occurs when the
reason for assenting to a statement is based on following the
recommendation or advice of an improper authority.
Arthur Schopenhauer cynically summarizes how the argument can be
effectively used to take advantage of opponents in argumentation:
“[T]he argumentum ad verecundiam …
consists in making an appeal to authority rather than reason, and
in using such an authority as may suit the degree of knowledge
possessed by your opponent. … The more limited his capacity
and knowledge, the greater is the number of the authorities who
weigh with him.[1]
Schopenhauer recommends citing obscure authorities to impress the
unlearned. Logically, however, acknowledging authorities only carries
some significance when the authority is an expert in the field under
examination. Relevant and appropriate authorities frequently disagree
on important issues.
Although some logicians today use the Latin phrase
“argumentum ad verecundiam” (or often,
more simply, the phrase “ad verecundiam”
or “argument from authority”) as the name of a
fallacy, [2] historically
those phrases were mainly used to describe appealing to an authority's
judgment, relevant or otherwise, for use as evidence in an argument.
These terms were not initially used specifically to denote the fallacy
of appealing to evidence provided by an irrelevant or ill-suited
authority.[3]
Different kinds of authorities are cited by logicians in
different kinds of ad verecundiam arguments:
experts in a particular field of knowledge
(cognitive or epistemic authority): e.g., Bruce Catton,
historian, an authority on the U.S. Civil War
prestigious or powerful individuals or
institutions: e.g., Mahatma Gandhi, civil right activist,
an authority on nonviolent resistance
governmental, legal or administrative
officials: e.g., Hammurabi, King of Babylon, authority on
legal code
social, family, religious, or ancestral heads:
Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, an authority on ethics
electronic knowledge resources — information
accessed through information and communication technologies:
e.g., Google Search, as an information search engine
Many advertising campaigns are built on ad verecundiam
appeals. Popular sports figures, musicians, or actors endorse products of
which they have no special expertise, and, in this context, their celebrity
status is offered as a reason we should use those products.
Even so, occasionally a movie star, for example, might also be an
appropriate authority in another field of expertise. For example,
former Hollywood actor and union leader Ronald Reagan could have been
relevantly quoted as a U.S. political authority at the time of his
California governorship or his U.S. presidency. Former Hollywood actor
and film director Paul Newman could have been quoted as an authority
on professional racing during his motorsports career as team owner and
race car driver. The reasoning of these individuals in those respective
fields would not ordinarily be open to the charge of an ad
verecundiam fallacy.
Note also that an ad verecundiam argument is not
a deductive argument since its conclusion is
not claimed to follow with absolute certainty. Even a consensus of
reliable authorities can be mistaken about the subject matter in their
field of expertise at times.
Ad verecundiam arguments are nonformal arguments
and are often considered inductive
arguments (i.e., arguments whose conclusions are claimed to
follow with probability). Ad verecundiam arguments
are not necessarily fallacious even if the claim by an
appropriate authority is subsequently found to be mistaken. (The
claim is considered to be wrong but not fallacious since a claim
considered in itself is not an
argument.[4]
For example, in 1948, readers of Science News were invited
to buy a fluffy 80% cotton and 20% asbestos dish towel provided by the
Science Service
Program.[5] Concluding
that the towel would be safe and useful would not have been an
ad verecundiam fallacy at that time even though the
authority being relied upon, Science Service, a program of Science
News itself, was unaware asbestos can cause fatal illnesses.
The descriptions provided for the towel seemed probable at the time since
the health hazards of asbestos were not known.
In every case, the relevance or appropriateness of the
authority's expertise to the question at issue is the essential element
under consideration. Effective recognition and avoidance of this
fallacy is necessarily based on an adequate definition of an improper,
inappropriate or irrelevant authority. Developing criteria of relevance
for the extensive diversity of types of authorities proves to be
formidable.
The Basic Pattern of the Argumentum ad
Verecundiam Scheme, the Conditions under which the ad Verecundiam
Is Fallacious, and Typical Example Analyzed
The nonformal structure of the ad verecundiam fallacy, generally
speaking, has this basic pattern:
informal guide to Ad
Verecundiam Fallacy:
Authority L on subject X
claims statement p.
Authority L's expertise is not relevant to
subject X or statement p.
∴ p is claimed true.
The ad verecundiam argument is considered a fallacy if
any of the following conditions are met:
(1) Expertise: The authority is not judged to be an acknowledged
expert on subject under discussion by most other experts in that field.
(2) Statement Accuracy: The authority does not actually maintain
the statement quoted or maintain any other statements provable from that
statement.
(3) Statement Relevance: The statement is not relevant to, and
not within the purview of, the subject under discussion.
(4) Substantiation: The authority cannot provide reasons,
grounds, or evidence for the truth of the statement at
issue.[6]
typical example of Ad
Verecundiam Fallacy:
Researcher Linus Pauling winner of two unshared Nobel
prizes, one for chemistry, another for peace, argued his daily use of
vitamin C delayed the onset of his cancer by twenty years.
Obtaining Nobel Prizes in chemistry and for peace does
not imply expertise in the prevention of disease.
∴ Vitamin C is effective in preventing cancer.
An authority is defined here as a person whose opinion or belief
within a specific field of knowledge or practice is acknowledged,
accepted, or entitled to be accepted as being non-biased and reliable.
(Note the assumptive non-fallacious ad populum foundation of this definition.)
The Argumentum ad Verecundiam as
Distinguished from Other Informal Fallacies with Examples
Historically, the ad verecundiam fallacy subsumes a variety of
different kinds of fallacies of authority which are not often distinguished in
logic textbooks.[7] These sub-fallacies
often dovetail with other of the historically significant informal fallacies.
The ad verecundiam fallacy in some cases overlaps
instances of the ad populum.
Some ad verecundiam arguments are called the
“argument from prestige” since they are based on the belief
that respected people are not usually mistaken.
In cases where the belief or practices of an elite or privileged group
of persons is being cited, the fallacy is frequently termed the “snob
appeal” variety of the ad
populum fallacy.
Sometimes, the ad verecundiam and the
ad populum fallacies overlap
and so are not usually distinguished. For example, Schopenhauer recommends
the debate stratagem citing the “universal prejudice” of the
many as an authority in argumentation. He notes:
“There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily
embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is
generally adopted.”[8]
When viewed from a psychological perspective, members of groups often
act to minimize internal conflict rather than risk disputes over what
might be more effective practices.
A fallacy example exhibiting such an overlap occurs in an argument
where the idealist historian Benedetto Croce distinguishes the eternal
idea of the “Holy” Inquisition
from its historical incarnation by the Catholic Church. The fallacy may be
identifiable as either an ad verecundiam or an
ad populum:
“The Inquisition must have been justified and beneficial, if
whole peoples invoked and defended it, if men of the loftiest souls
founded and created it severally and impartially, and its very
adversaries applied it on their own account, pyre answering to
pyre.”[9]
The reason this argument is fallacious is essentially based on the
distinction between ethics and morals. In a word, ethics is a prescriptive
discipline, whereas morality is a descriptive discipline. What is
done is different from what ought to be done. What many persons
think is right is not a sure sign of what is ethically right.
So, the ethical rightness of a practice is not merely determinable by
the “authority” of numerous well-intended people over a
period of time.
Clearly, in other instances, citing the authority of a large group
of specified individuals need not be fallacious if the authority is an
appropriate, relevant authority.
For example, the following nonfallacious argument can be classified as
either an ad verecundiam or an
ad populum:
“Singular as it may seem, trees do not die by the
stroke [of lightning], but continue to grow on, unless shivered
to pieces: the animal on which it falls (as appears by
the testimony of such as have been struck and survived)
neither sees, hears, nor feels anything; but is instantly
deprived of sense.[emphasis added]”[10]
In this passage, the authority of the group of persons cited is
relevant and so no fallacy occurs.
The argumentum ad populum in some cases overlaps instances
of the argumentum ad baculum.
With regulatory
authorities[11]ad verecundiam arguments can be part of an argumentum
ad baculum in some situations:
“The U.S. Department of Transportation, in an effort to
reduce the alarming increase in highway related deaths last
year, announced Saturday that highway funds earmarked for
bridge repair will be blocked in those states not proactively
enforcing federal highway safety measures.”
However, in this case the authority is relevant and the threat is
within the authority's purview so the argument is nonfallacious.
Some Varieties of ad
Verecundiam Arguments Extracted and Explained from Various Readings
Evaluate these passages excerpted from various readings for the presence
of, and the fallaciousness of, an ad verecundiam argument:
Specify if any of the following passages are ad
vericundiam arguments, and, if so, whether they are fallacious:
“I find a second hopeful sign in the fact that many of the finest
minds are to-day recoiling from the voice of absolute scepticism.
…Prof. A. C. Armstrong, Jr., one of the most cautious students
of philosophy, has noted with care the indications that ’the day
of doubt is drawing to a close.’… Romanes, the famous
biologist, who once professed the most absolute rejection of revealed,
and the most unqualified scepticism of natural religion, thinks his way
soberly back from the painful void to a position where he confesses
that ‘it is reasonable to be a Christian believer,’ and die
in the full communion of the church
of Jesus.’”[12]
The argument in this passage, if there is one, is that many intelligent
persons are turning from scepticism to embrace religious faith. The
writer's support for this thesis is to point out the examples of
Armstrong, a student of philosophy and Romanes, a biologist, both
turning to faith.
At best, the argument is one of weak induction: two examples are given
to support a generalization. His argument does not rely on the truth
of the specific declarations of these two individuals; it relies only
on the evidence of their being confirming instances of his thesis that
many smart persons are turning to religion. The authorities' specific
expertise is not a premise for the conclusion that intelligent people are
turning to religion. Hence, the ad verecundiam argument
is absent from this passage.
“The United States policy toward mainland China in the 1980s was
surely mistaken because Shirley MacLaine, a well-known actress at the time,
emphasized she had grave misgivings about
them.”[13]
An actress with no special qualifications in international relations
or political science does not qualify as an experienced authority on the
interactions between different countries in relation to their power and
influence. So, the ad verecundiam argument is committed.
Background: Freeman Dyson is a theoretical physicist specializing
in quantum mechanics and astrophysics.
”Distinguished Scientist Freeman Dyson has called the 1433 decision
of the emperor of China to discontinue his country's exploration of the
outside world the ‘worst political blunder in the history of
civilization.’”[14]
Although there is one one sentence in the passage, the implicit argument
is we can be sure that China's prohibition of discovery in 1433 was the
worst blunder in history because an eminent scientist said so. The conclusion
is outside of Dyson's field of expertise, so as an argument, the
ad verecundiam fallacy occurs. However, notice that even
though such an argument would be fallacious, that fact does not thereby
prove that the conclusion is false. Fallacious arguments sometimes have true
conclusions.
“Advocates for lifting age limits on Plan B [a.k.a., the morning-after
pill], including Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, insist the
pill is universally safe and, therefore, all age barriers should be dropped.
From a strictly utilitarian viewpoint, this might be well-advised, but is
science the only determining factor when it comes to the well-being of our
children? Even President Obama, who once boasted his policies would be based
on science and not emotion, has parental qualms about children buying serious
drugs to treat a condition that has deeply psychological
underpinnings.”[15]
President Obama's fields of expertise do not include medical ethics, so an
irrelevant authority is being quoted. Since President Obama is not an
acknowledged authority for medical ethics, citing his opinion would not be
logically relevant to the argument. Also, even as a legal authority, his
experience is dubious.
If his opinion were to be based upon relevant experts in medical ethics, then
those experts should have been cited instead. The best that can be said is
that President Obama is an intelligent man and so might have an informed
opinion, but the implicit argument in this passage is an ad
verecundiam fallacy.
“Living organisms are the original control systems on this planet. As
noted biologist Ernst Mayr puts it, ‘The occurrence of goal-directed
[i.e., control] processes is perhaps the most characteristic feature
of the world of living
organisms.’”[16]
As Ernst Mayer is considered one of the last century's most noted
evolutionary biologists and historian of science, the cited authority is
relevant to the argument proposed. So the ad verecundiam
fallacy does not occur.
Nevertheless, it's important to point out that Mayr's statement does not
indicate that living organisms are the “original control systems on
this planet.” Thus, the fallacy of
ignoratio elenchi probably
occurs since a characteristic feature of something is not necessarily the
original feature of that thing. However, citing that fallacy as present in
the passage excerpted might be hair-splitting.
“Former U.S. President George W. Bush said that America would be much
stronger if the people would return to traditional American values, and
indeed he argues that we should. He says, ‘I am firmly convinced that
our greatest problems today — from drugs and welfare dependency to
crime and moral breakdown — spring from the deterioration of the
American Family. Families must come first in
America.’”[17]
Although it is to be expected that the president would be knowledgeable
about the major problems of the United States, it is doubtful that Bush's
expertise in the area of sociological causality is enough to consider him
to be an authoritative source. The argument is a weak ad
verecundiam and its fallaciousness is not clearly apparent.
“A 1990 survey found 80 percent of economists agreed with the
statement increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among the youth
and low-skilled. If you're looking for a consensus in most fields of
study, examine the introductory and intermediate college textbooks in the
field. Economics textbooks that mention the minimum wage say it increases
unemployment for the least skilled
worker.”[18]
Neither the ad verecundiam nor the ad
populum fallacies occur. The individuals cited in the argument are
economists and so are pertinent authorities on the minimum-wage issue.
The fact that a consensus of economists and of economic textbooks are
mentioned in the premises is not fallacious since relevant economic
authorities are being listed.
Backgound: Robert Burton, mentioned in the following argument,
was an 17th century Anglican clergyman, librarian, and writer.
“These portrayals of women … in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries … regarded [women] as more easily able to convey a false
emotional state, in their efforts to bewitch or betray unsuspecting men.
… As the well-known English writer Robert Burton wrote of women in
his Anatomy of Melancholy (first published in 1621), women are
faithless and display false emotions in the calculated attempt to deceive
men. He advised other men that when women protest their love, ‘believe
them not.’”[19]
Burton's background as a scholar is insufficient to make him an authority on the
understanding the sociocultural character of women of his age; consequently,
this passage illustrates an ad verecundiam fallacy.
”To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white
which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides
it.”[20]
The ad verecundiam fallacy occurs since the Hierarchial
Church is not considered an authority on the subject of veridical perception
(i.e., the question of whether our perceptions accurately reflect the
external world).
Background: Evangelist Billy Graham wrote the following implicit
argument purporting to show the resurgence of Satanic religion in America.
Graham cites American novelist John Updike (who describes the decline of
religion in his novels), and Baptist minister Harvey Cox (who is Professor
of Divinity) in support of his thesis.
“Arthur Lyons gave his book a title that is frighteningly accurate:
The Second Coming: Satanism in America. This theme, which
intellectuals would have derided a generation ago is now being dealt with
seriously by such people as noted author John Updike and Harvard professor
Harvey Cox.”[21]
Graham's argument is an attempt to bolster his thesis that the religion of
Satan is making a reappearance in America culture — his claim is a
sociological allegation. The novelist and the professor might possibly be
considered authorities on Satanism but the sociological claim is outside the
area of expertise of these authorities, so the ad vercundiam
fallacy occurs.
Although the following passages are considered fallacies in a popular logic
textbook, note why they are not fallacious:
Background: The following passage is from Galileo's Two Dialogues
Concerning Two New Sciences:
“But can you doubt that air has weight when you have the clear
testimony of Aristotle affirming that all the elements have weight
including air, and excepting only
fire?”[22]
Strictly speaking this sentence is a question and, consequently, would
not count as an argument.
If there is no argument, there is no fallacy. However, in context, the
question might be interpreted as an argument of the following kind:
“Aristotle affirmed these assertions. Aristotle is a relevant authority. ∴These assertions are true.”
At the time of writing, Aristotle was a proper and relevant
authority in science, so at that time no fallacy would occur. Today,
of course, Aristotle is no longer deemed an authority in natural science.
Nevertheless, the passage quoted in the logic textbook was taken out of
context. Galileo offers a supporting reason for fact that air has weight,
and this next sentence was omitted from the exercise in the textbook:
“As evidence of this he [Aristotle] cites the fact that a
leather bottle weighs more when inflated than when collapsed.”
Since Aristotle gave evidence for his conclusion that air has weight,
the argument does not depend upon his authority to substantiate this part
of the argument. So the fallacy of accent (in this case more accurately
termed “contextomy”) occurs: i.e. misquoting in such a
manner that the facts are altered. Of course, this fallacy could not be
identified unless the original source were consulted.
“In that melancholy book The Future of an Illusion,
Dr. Freud, himself one of the last great theorists of the European
capitalist class, has stated with simple clarity the impossibility
of religious belief for the educated man of
today.”[23]
Mr. Strachey, the author of this argument, indicates his opinion of Freud's
work and sums up its impact. Opinions might be right or wrong, but only
arguments are properly described as “logically valid” or
“fallacious.” It's likely no argument is present in this excerpt.
However, the context of the passage might possibly have suggested the
following argument:
“Freud described how religious belief is wish fulfillment and
no longer possible. Freud is a proper authority on this. ∴ Freud's assertions are correct.”
Freud is considered an authority on the psychology of religion (which would
be included as part of the psychological nature of belief); however, he
is probably not a proper authority on religious beliefs in and of themselves.
However, religious beliefs per se are not at issue in the passage. In
sum, the argument, if there is one, is not clearly fallacious, but it is not
a particularly persuasive argument either. A substantial aspect of evaluation
of this passage depends upon to what degree the term “educated man of
today” is persuasively defined.
The Proper Use of ad Verecundiam
Arguments
Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields,
and, ceteris paribus, their testimony should have direct
bearing on the argument at hand — especially if we have no better
evidence upon which to base a conclusion on securer grounds.
For example, Jeremy Bentham describes four important factors determining
the cogency of an argument from
authority,[24] and James A.
Winans and William E. Utterback describe the legitimate use of authority in establishing the truth of the premises of an
argument.[25] Even so, the
specific relevance of the authority as well as the truth of the authority's
testimony may become further points of contention.
To qualify as an authority, the individual must be generally
recognized by peers in the same field or, at least, by peers who either
hold a similar view or peers who recognize the cogency of the point of
view being expressed.
Examine, for yourself, why the condition of citing many
authorities in a field would not be an instance of the ad
populum fallacy.
The conclusions of relevant authorities are not to be accepted
simply on the basis they stated something on, or about, a subject of
their expertise, but rather on the basis their conclusions were reached
by reason and experience.
An example of an argument where many authorities
are invoked for support is pressed by Justice Jeremiah Black, U.S.
statesman, lawyer, and judge in the mid-19th century. Justice Black
denigrates “the Great Agnostic” Robert Ingersoll's
arguments against the Christian doctrine of atonement as follows:
“The plan of salvation … could have been framed only in
the councils of the Omniscient … [and] are not easily fathomed
by finite intelligence. But the greatest, ablest, wisest, and most
virtuous men that ever lived have given it their profoundest
consideration, and found it to be not only authorized by revelation,
but theoretically conformed to their best and highest conceptions of
infinite goodness. Nevertheless, here is a rash and superficial man,
without training or habits of reflection, who, upon a mere glance,
declares that it ‘must be abandoned’ because it seems to
him ‘absurd, unjust, and
immoral.’”[26]
Able, wise, and virtuous authorities for either side of a religious
issue can be marshaled. Putting aside Judge Black's ad
hominem in the concluding sentence, we can see the appeal to nameless
religious authorities provides little support for his argument. Authorities
can be found for almost any controversial unfalsifiable issue we can name.
What counts as proper support for a factual issue is authoritative,
knowledgeable expertise based on reason and experience.
In sum, in the absence of other available evidence to us,
persuasive evidence of knowledgeable authority can be effective in
disputations.
Nevertheless, in the final analysis of issues of critical importance, the
Royal Society motto should hold sway: Nullius in verba (“take no
one's word for it.)”[27]
Factual issues are not normally decided on the basis of which of various
opposing legitimate authorities is the most illustrious. When authorities
differ, arguments such as the following by the Roman forensic orator and
philosopher Cicero are of minor consequence:
“The discourse of Lucullus … moved me a good deal, being
the discourse of a learned and ingenious and quick-willed man …
But no doubt such authority as his would have influenced me a good
deal, if you [Catulus] had not opposed your own to it, which is of equal
weight. I will endeavour therefore, to reply to him after I have said
a few words in defense of my own reputation, as it
were.”[28]
Rather than evaluating the oratory of Lucullus on its own merits, Cicero judges
its content in terms of how it is regarded by a hierarchy of authorities —
his own authority judged by him as preeminent.
The ad Verecundiam Frequency of
Use in Google books Ngram
Viewer
FIG. 1. Historical Frequency of Use of ad
Verecundiam and Argument from Authority in Google Books 1750-2019.
Postscript Quotation for
the ad Verecundiam
postscript
“But man, proud man,
Dressed in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured
…
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep”
(William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
Act II, sc. ii, ll 117-121.)
Links to Additional Examples and Online Practice
Quizzes with Suggested Solution for the ad Verecundiam
Test your understanding of ad Verecundiam arguments which
appear in the following quizzes:
“Historically speaking, argument from authority has been mentioned in
lists of valid argument-forms as often as in lists of Fallacies.”
Charles Hamlin, Fallacies (London: Methuen Publishing, Ltd., 1970),
43.↩
3. In the late 17th century, John Locke first used the phrase to describe one of
four kinds of commonly used “assent producing devices”:
“Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities [‘men, whose
parts, learning, eminency, power or some other cause has gained a name’],
thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence
in any one who shall stand out against them. This I think, may be called
argumentum ad verecundiam.”
So Locke's coinage of the term was intended to describe the
process of accepting the expertise of an eminent authority's judgment without
further inquiry on the basis of modesty or respect for the authority's experience
and learning. For him, argumentum ad verecundiam is a persuasive
technique whereby one overawes by the use of authority without attending to
reasons or evidence relevant to an inquiry.
In the mid-19th century, Schopenhauer writes,
”Those who are so zealous and eager to settle debated
questions by citing authorities … will meet [any] attack by bringing
up their authorities as a way of abashing him — argumentum
ad verecundiam, and then cry out that they have won the battle.”
Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art
of Literature, trans. T. Bailey Saunders (London: Swan Sonnenschien
& Company, 1891), 69.↩
4. Other authors classify ad verecundiam arguments differently. Hamlin
prefers to classify arguments from authority as “non-deductive”
arguments rather than inductive arguments. He writes, “[T]here are clear
cases of arguments that are non-deductive: inductive arguments, statistical or
probabilistic arguments, arguments from authority …” C. L. Hamlin
Fallacies (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.: 1970),
249-250.↩
6. Douglas Walton's “crucial questions” for the defeasibility of
the ad verecundiam are stronger than those recommended
here. See Douglas Walton, Legal Argumentation and Evidence
(University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002), 49-50 and
Appeal to Expert Opinion (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 2002), 211-225.↩
7. See, for example, Douglas Walton, Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from
Authority (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2010),
90.↩
Irving M. Copi and Keith Burgess-Jackson, Informal Logic
(Wadsworth, 1992), 136.
Douglas Walton, Appeal to Popular
Opinion (Philadelphia: Pennyslvania State University Press, 2010), 45.
Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, Victor Rodych, Introduction to
Logic 15th ed. (Routledge, 2018), 140.↩
10. Luke Howard, Seven Lectures on Meteorology
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 95.
doi:
10.1017/cbo9781139135467↩
11. Authority of command is discussed by Jean Goodwin,
“Forms of Authority and the Real Ad Verecundiam, ”
Argumentation Vol. 12 (1998),
267-280.↩
12. J. T. Plunket,
“The
Personal Christ, Gospel for Our Time,” in The Presbyterian
Quarterly ed. G. B. Strickler, et al. (New York: A.D.F. Randolf Company,
1898), Vol. 12, 549.↩
17. George Bush, ”Remarks to the National Association of Evangelicals in
Chicago Illinois, March 3, 1992,” Public Papers of the Presidents
of the United States: George Bush, 1992-3 Book 2 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1993),
368.↩
22. I. M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (New York: Macmillan, 1994),
135. The passage quoted is taken from Galileo Galilei,
Dialogues
Concerning Two New Sciences (New York: Macmillan, 1914),
77.↩
“[T]he weight or influence to be attached to an
authority … depends upon:
(1) the degree of relative and adequate intelligence of
the person in question;
(2) the degree of relative probity of the same person;
(3) the nearness or remoteness between the subject of his
opinion and the question in hand; and
(4) the fidelity of the medium through which such
supposed opinion has been transmitted, including both correctness and
completeness.”
Jeremy Bentham, Handbook of Political Fallacies,
ed. H. A. Larrabee (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1971),
17-18.↩
25. Winans and Utterback point out that the argument from
authority is useful when matters of fact are beyond the knowledge of the
disputants and agreement is had as to the relevant authorities. Qualifications
of authority obviously depend upon “reputation for intellectual
competence” and “reputation for veracity.” James A. Winans
and William E. Utterback, Argumentation (New York: The Century
Company, 1930), 157-171.
In this, these authors follow the more subjective interpretation first presented
by the latter 18th century logician Isaac Watts who writes,
“When the Argument is fetch'd from the Sentiments of some wise, great,
or good Men, whose Authority we reverence, and hardly dare oppose, it is
called Argumentum ad Verecundiam as Address to our
Modesty.”
27. “Science progresses by testing a hypothesis against the available
evidence obtained through experiment and observation of the natural world.
It is not based on the authority or opinion of individuals or institution.
In fact the Royal Society motto ‘Nullius in verba’ can be
roughly translated as ’take nobody's word for it.’”
Parliament House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee,
Peer
Review in Scientific Publications (Great Britain: Stationery Office,
2011), 103.↩
The GNU
Public License assures users the freedom to
use, copy, redistribute, and make modifications only if
they allow these same terms, with or without changes,
for their copies. Works for sale must link to a free copy.