Homepage » Logic » Informal Fallacies » ad Verecundiam

Ad Verecundiam (Argument from Authority) Explained with Examples

1. 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.

   
   
   
   1. 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.
      
      
      
   2. 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]
      
      
      
   3. Different kinds of authorities are cited by logicians in different kinds of ad verecundiam arguments:
      
      

      1. experts in a particular field of knowledge (cognitive or epistemic authority): e.g., Bruce Catton, historian, an authority on the U.S. Civil War

      2. prestigious or powerful individuals or institutions: e.g., Mahatma Gandhi, civil right activist, an authority on nonviolent resistance

      3. governmental, legal or administrative officials: e.g., Hammurabi, King of Babylon, authority on legal code

      4. social, family, religious, or ancestral heads: Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, an authority on ethics

      5. electronic knowledge resources — information accessed through information and communication technologies: e.g., Google Search, as an information search engine

         
         
         
   4. 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.
      
      
      
      1. 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.
         
         
         
      2. 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.
         
         
         
         1. 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]
            
            
         2. 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.
            
            
            
   5. 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.
      
      
      

2. 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.)
   
   
   

3. 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.
   
   
   
   1. The ad verecundiam fallacy in some cases overlaps instances of the ad populum.
      
      
      
      1. 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.
         
         
      2. 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.
         
         
      3. 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.
         
         
         
      4. 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.
         
         
         
   2. The argumentum ad populum in some cases overlaps instances of the argumentum ad baculum.
      
      
      1. 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.
         
         
         

4. 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:
   
   
   
   1. Specify if any of the following passages are ad vericundiam arguments, and, if so, whether they are fallacious:
      1. “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]
         
         Answer
         
         
         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.
         
         
      2. “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]
         
         Answer
         
         
         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.
         
         
      3. 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]
         
         Answer
         
         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.
         
         
      4. “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]
         
         Answer
         
         
         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.
         
         
         
      5. “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]
         
         Answer
         
         
         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.
         
         
         
      6. “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]
         
         Answer
         
         
         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.
         
         
         
      7. “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]
         
         Answer
         
         
         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.
         
         
         
      8. 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]
         
         Answer
         
         
         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.
         
         
         
      9. ”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]
         
         Answer
         
         
         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).
         
         
         
      10. 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]
          
          Answer
          
          
          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.
          
          
          
   2. Although the following passages are considered fallacies in a popular logic textbook, note why they are not fallacious:
      
      
      1. 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]
         
         Answer
         
         
         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.
         
         
         
      2. 
         “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]
         
         Answer
         
         
         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.
         
         
         

5. 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.
   
   
   
   1. 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.
      
      
      
      1. Examine, for yourself, why the condition of citing many authorities in a field would not be an instance of the ad populum fallacy.
         
         

      2. 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.
         
         
      3. In sum, in the absence of other available evidence to us, persuasive evidence of knowledgeable authority can be effective in disputations.
         
         
         
   2. 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.
      

6. 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.
   
   

7. 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.)
   
   
   
   
   

   ---

8. 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:
   
   Argumentum ad Verecundiam Examples Exercise: Rather difficult examples of ad ignorantiam arguments for analysis in a self-grading quiz.
   
   Other Quizzes on Fallacies for Self-Testing: Fallacies of Relevance I
   Fallacies of Relevance II
   Fallacies of Relevance III
   

Notes