Ad Verecundiam (Argument From Authority) Examples:
Self-Quiz with Answers
Abstract:Ad verecundiam
arguments (arguments from authority) and related fallacy examples are
provided and analyzed for credibility in a self-scoring quiz.
Ad Verecundiam Fallacy (the argument from inappropriate
authority): the logical error committed when an appeal to the testimony
of an authority outside of the authority's special field of expertise is used
in support of a conclusion.
(2) Read and analyze the following passages. Selecting
(i.e., clicking on) names or concepts in green text
French statesman and foreign minister to Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte;
today Talleyrand is often assumed to be a crafty, deceitful diplomat.
“Les méthodes sont les maîtres des
maîtres.” [i.e., Methods are the master of the
master.] … The use of method in teaching is seeing that the
subject-matter taught is realized in the experience of the
pupil.”[1]
Talleyrand was not an educational authority; a method of
teaching would master or control a student in a much difference sense than the
method of statecraft would “master” a diplomat or political authority.
Since Talleyrand is being quoted outside of his field of authority, the fallacy
of ad verecundiam occurs.
“[T]he statement of a Chicago dentist — Dr. George W. Cook
— made before the Northern Ohio Dental association's recent [1913]
convention [is] that sugar is good for the teeth. This will bring joy to
thousands of candy-loving grown-ups, to say nothing of the multitude of
small children who have been denied sweets
…”[2]
A dentist would usually be considered an authority in the field of dentistry,
so the 1913 ad verecundiam argument would not be considered
a fallacy at that time. Although the advice given by this dentist
turned out to be misguided, his advice at that time would not be considered
fallacious since relying upon his advice then would have been an acceptable
non-deductive argument on our part. Authorities are relied upon because they are
experienced and knowledgeable about their discipline, but as this example shows,
authorities can sometimes be mistaken. (Inductive arguments do not guarantee the
truth of their conclusions.) However, today, citing a 1913 dentist's advice
would be an ad verecundiam fallacy, since today the 1913 dentist
would not be considered an authority in the field.
“The College of Physicians regards the so-called
Homeopathists
A homeopathist practices alternative medicine whereby symptoms are treated
by prescribing very small doses of drugs which tend to cause symptoms similar
to the symptoms of the disease itself. E.g., a very small tincture of
onion juice in water might be used to treat allergies.
as neither skillful nor safe.
Therefore the College can not, without betraying a sacred
trust, give its license to persons whom they regard as wholly unworthy their
confidence, and with whom it is not possible they can hold any
communion.”[3]
The College of Physicians are an appropriate authority to judge the usefulness
of alternative medicine systems such as homeopathy; thus, no fallacy occurs in
this argument.
“It is not possible to have a high estimate of the intellectual and moral
level of the Singhalese monkhood in general. … The well-known authority
on Singhalese monkhood, Spence Hardy wrote … ‘There are about nine
thousand monks; among them a few — very few — great scholars; the
majority are illiterate, and some, to avoid labour, seek a life of indolence
sheltered by the yellow robes of priesthood; many are
depraved.‘”[4]
The authority is said to be appropriate so the argument is a typical
non-fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam.
“The U.S. military ought to stay out of European affairs, because
from the days of Washington we have obeyed the injunction: no ‘entangling
alliances.’”[5]
The so-called presupposition of the “authority“ of traditional
practices from colonial times is not a relevant reason by itself for
obeying the injunction in current circumstances; citing a precedent does not
necessarily justify its current advisability in much altered historical
conditions. The ad verecundiam fallacy may be said to occur;
nevertheless, empirical evidence of the historical continuity of success of
the doctrine makes the argument somewhat probable. Nevertheless, many informal
logicians would not consider an appeal to tradition and custom (also known as
argumentum ad antiquitatem) as an ad
verecundiam argument.
“Dr. Schofield, the well-known authority on mental working [i.e.,
the power of mental suggestion] told me that two medical men near Edinburgh
were walking in the country and one denied the power of suggestion. The other
one called up a labourer in the field, and after asking him the way to Edinburgh,
told him he looked very ill, and that he should go to bed at once, giving him
his name and the name of his friend — both well-known medical men. Within
a week the man was dead. The Daily News, in reporting this case,
said nowadays such a thing was as much a murder as if the medical man had fired
a pistol in the man's face to see whether it would have any
effect.[6]
The argument in this passage is to the effect that Dr. Schofield, an authority
on the occult, is offering proof of the power of suggestion by citing an example
where the power of suggestion was confirmed. This passage is not a case of
the ad verecundiam fallacy. Instead, the fallacy committed is
that of assuming that an event that follows another event is the cause of that
second event; hence, the fallacy of false cause
or more specifically the fallacy of post
hoc ergo propter hoc (i.e., “after this; therefore, because
of this”) occurs.
“The injury which may follow …upon severe physical exertion
represents but a small fraction when compared with the undoubted benefits which
accrue from moderate and reasonable exercise. … Mr. Walter Rye, the
well-known authority on cross-country running, writes thus: ‘We can speak
from an experience now covering nearly twenty years, and can positively say
that we know of no man of the hundreds with whom we have been acquainted who
has been injured by distance-running, and the rate of mortality among running
men is singularly small.’”[7]
An authority in the field cites evidence in the field in support of a conclusion.
The ad verecundiam argument in this passage is not a fallacy.
“Ernest W. Burgess, the noted authority on marriage … [pronounces] the
basic cause of divorce is
marriage.”[8]
The passage is not argumentative, per se, so no fallacy occurs.
The purpose of the passage is not meant to inform
but to amuse. If this example were to be taken seriously — even then —
the putative fallacy would not be that of ad verecundiam but
instead it would be false cause since
marriage is a necessary
but not a sufficient
condition for divorce.
“Monkeys and apes most nearly approximate human musicians. In central
Africa these animal tribes have musical centres where they congregate regularly
for ‘concerts.’ Prof. Richard S. Garner, the noted authority on
apes and monkeys, believes that the time has already come for the establishment
of a school for their education. He would have the courses beginning with a
kindergarten and advancing through as many grades as the students
required.”[9]
Apes and monkeys have been taught to understand some basic aspects of human
language, to use symbols, and to ascertain number sequence, as presumably foreseen
by the authority cited. Even so, the claims of the argumentum ad
verecundiam are inflated and weak, but not clearly fallacious.
“J. L. Desessarts, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris (1803),
in a work on the ‘Curative Power of Music,’ assumed a mechanical
action of music on nervous tissue, whereby the fluidity of humours was
increased so as to lead to a favorable crisis. Music, by imparting to the
nerves their life, which in certain maladies is suspended or choked, restores
this function of vitality to vessels and tissues. It can, therefore, have a
powerful influence on the secretions and excretions, and become a constant
means of healing maladies that are called ‘humoral,’ gastric,
putrid, or malignant.”[10]
The key to this passage is the attribution, without experimental research, of
“assumed” mechanical action on nerves, vessels, and tissues by sound
waves. The quoted suppositions are couched in vague, concocted pseudoscientific
terms. The authority cited uses Hippocratic terminology of “humours”
from the 4th century BCE. The fallacy of ad verecundiam occurs
since the physics of sound does not fall within the presumed authority's expertise
in medicine as being dean of faculty at a medical school.
“‘Painting and writing,’ says Chou Shun, a Sung painter,
‘are the same art.’ The well-known authority, Dr. John C. Ferguson,
tells us that in judging of the merit of a painter the Chinese connoisseur
habitually looks first at the poem and then at the picture; and, if the poem
does not satisfy his taste, often refuses to look at the picture, judging that
it cannot be worthy of his
study.”[11]
No fallacy is present in this passage since no argument is present. If the passage
were to be part of an argument in a broader context, no fallacy would occur since
the authority quoted is a relevant authority.
The following authority was cited at a meeting of the American Electrochemical
Society:
“[A] noted authority in the field of organised research, …
Dr. Whitney … stated that it was a fortunate circumstance when
bodies were organized or otherwise induced to react, they did not directly
tend, in the majority of cases, to reproduce the energy, or energy of
the same form; for instance, reactions do not tend directly to produce
heat, but, on the contrary, when energy such, for instance, as heat or
electricity is applied, and a reaction takes place, a new compound is
produced.”
The fallacy of ad verecundiam occurs since an authority in
“organized research” is not an expert on the nature of chemical
reactions.
The following argument is meant to support, in spite of much criticism, the
authoritative expertise of Henry Thomas Buckle as a historian:
“When writers of such high attainments and various renown …
combine in almost unanimous disparagement of [Henry Thomas Buckle and his
History of Civilization] … whose views had been formed
in no school and his intellect disciplined at no university, it requires some
moral courage to call in question the verdict of such a tribunal. …
[T]he agreement of his critics cannot be regarded as cumulative evidence.
… In fact, Buckle's mental powers throughout his literary career were
all aglow, and … [one can point] to his known remarkable
linguistic acquirements and his singular skill as a chess player as proof that
in two very different fields of acquirement his merits were
incontestable.”[13]
The argument in this passage is that the judgments concerning the historical
scholarship of author Henry Thomas Buckle by “writers of high attainments”
are incorrect because Buckle, according to Mr. Robertson, was a good chess
player and literary writer. Since the latter abilities are not necessarily relevant
to being a competent historian, this appears to be an unusual example of the
ad verecundiam fallacy.
“‘Richard,’ she said, all at once, ‘would you mind my
living away from you?’
‘Away from me? Why, that's what you were doing when I married you. What,
then, was the meaning of marrying at all?’ …
Sue continued: ‘She, or he, “who lets the
world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need
of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation.”
J.S. Mill's
J.S. Mill was an empirical British philosopher, economist, and ethicist.
Ethicists study the nature of right and wrong action and thought in human
existence.
words those are. Why can't you act upon them? I wish to,
always.’”[14]
To be able to answer this question, one would have to know John Stuart Mill
was a renowned 19th century philosopher and utilitarian ethicist. Mill argues
that individuals ought to rely on their own experiences as to what is the
right action in human affairs. Mill's advice as a reason might not be relevant
to Sue's specific decision — we would need more information about Sue's
living situation in order to know if the advice were apt. Nevertheless, Sue's
quotation is taken from Mill's
On Liberty[15] and
would not count as a fallacy provided that Mill is taken as a relevant authority
on ethical decision-making and Sue is, in this passage, providing reasons for
her decision.
“Some of the doctors don't want to believe that electricity can cure
… when now X-rays, now radium, now mesothorium effect the most marvelous
cures among the pious believers, it is not a subject of surprise if the general
practitioner of today becomes sceptical in using electrical apparatus to treat
his suffering victims. The physician himself has to be convinced about the
curative action of his electrical apparatus. To prove this statement I will
mention the well known authority Dr. Bamberger of Berlin, Germany. He believed
he had discovered in scrofulosis
A type of tuberculosis called cervical tuberculous lymphadenitis, an
infectious bacterial illness usually found in the lungs.
— tubercular glands, the richest and most fruitful field for the application
of electricity in the form of galvanic current and fulguration by high frequency,
reasoning, that there where sun, air, hygiene and rich food are so very efficacious,
electricity can not be other then highly
beneficial.”[16]
Quoting an authority who believes that high frequency electricity can destroy
small growths of tuberculous because sun, air, hygiene, and rich food are
effective is an ignoratio elenchi,
(irrelevant conclusion fallacy), in itself. Furthermore, the fact that
electricity is thought to be effective treatment for tuberculous does not prove
that electricity will thereby be effective treatment in general medical practice.
Since the quoted authority's belief is not meaningfully related to general
medical practice, the fallacy of ad verecunidam occurs even
though the authority's field of expertise is relevant.
14. Thomas Hardy, Jude
the Obscure (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1905),
II:263, 265. The passage's quotation is from John Stuart Mill, On
Liberty 2nd. ed. (London: John W. Parker and Son, 1859),
49.↩
J.S. Mill, On Liberty 2nd. ed.
(Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1863), 113.↩
16. Charles B. Graf, M.D., “Electricity
in Gynecology,” The Eclectic Review 17 no. 9 (July 15, 1914),
14.↩
The “Copyleft” copyright assures the user the freedom to use,
copy, redistribute, make modifications with the same terms.
Works for sale must link to a free copy.
The “Creative Commons” copyright assures the user the
freedom
to copy, distribute, display, and modify on the same terms.
Works for sale must link to a free copy.