This error is used when a person turns to a false authority as evidence of a claim. [33] [34] These deceptive arguments of authority are the result of the invocation of non-authority as authority. [35] Philosophers Irving Copi and Carl Cohen have called it an error “when the appeal is made to parties who have no legitimate right to authority in this case.” [36] Copi explained: “When trying to decide a difficult and complicated issue, you can try to be guided by the judgment of a recognized expert who has studied the issue thoroughly. [. . .] This method of argumentation is in many cases quite legitimate. [. . . ] But when an authority is invited to testify in cases that do not fall within its jurisdiction, the appeal commits the error of the argumentum ad verecundiam.” [37] ad verecundiam (comparatively more ad verecundiam, superlative the most ad verecundiam) Abbreviated from the Latin expression argumentum ad verecundiam.

De argumentum (meaning “argument”) + ad (means “to” or “to”) + verecundiam, the singular accusative of verecundia (meaning “shyness”, “modesty” or “shame”). An argument of authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which an authority`s opinion on a subject is used as evidence in support of an argument. [1] Some believe that it is used in a consistent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of authority in the given context,[2][3] and others consider it always misleading to cite an authority`s views on the topic being discussed as a means of supporting an argument. [4] argumentum ad verecundiam (plural argumenta ad verecundiam) It is also a misleading ad hominem argument to assert that a person who submits statements is without authority and that, therefore, his arguments do not need to be taken into account. [38] As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of arguments are misleading for the same reasons as an appeal to authority. Person or person a statement that X is true. Person(s) A are experts in field X. Therefore, X should be believed. [15] In other words, it could be said that the premise of the argument does not apply in such a case, which makes the reasoning misleading. argūmentum ad verēcundiam n (genitive argūmentī ad verēcundiam); Historically, the opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-misleading argument in various sources as often as a misleading argument,[5] because some think it may be a strong or at least valid argument justifiable[7][8][9][10] and others, that it is weak or a complete error.

[4] [11] [12] [13] [14] An example of the use of the call to scientific authority dates back to 1923,[22] when the American zoologist Theophilus Painter, based on poor data and contradictory observations he had made,[23][24] stated that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s to 1956,[25] scientists propagated this “fact” on the basis of Painter`s authority.[26][27][24] despite subsequent counts that gave the correct number of 23. [23] [28] Even textbooks[23] with photos showing 23 couples incorrectly reported the number at 24[28], based on the authority of the consensus of 24 couples at the time. [29] Just like the wrong number of chromosomes that took decades to refute it until microscopy made the error unmistakable, the one who would expose this article was “constantly urged by friends and counselors to remain silent about his concerns so that he would not gain a reputation as a troublemaker” until the “very last moment when several `smoking guns` finally appeared.” and he noted that “there was almost no encouragement for him to investigate the evidence of strangeness he had discovered.” [32] In addition, people have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to adapt to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers found that “participants reported significant distress under peer pressure,” with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly wrong answer, while the wrong answer was given much less often when there was no such pressure. [45] Name of the second declination (neutral) with an undecidable proportion. The authorities` arguments based on the idea that a person should correspond to the opinion of a perceived authority or authoritative group are rooted in psychological cognitive biases[41] such as the Ash effect. [42] [43] In repeated and modified cases of Ash compliance experiments, it was found that high-status individuals are more likely to have a subject agree with a patently false conclusion, although the subject can generally clearly see that the answer was wrong. [44] Yes. a person accepts our discipline and goes through two or three years of study in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking and is no longer the critical outsider he once was. Of course, if the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we will beat him. If he goes through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are not clear or false, we dismiss him as a weird, a spinner or a stranger.

[50] One of the great commandments of science is, “Beware of the arguments of authority.” Too many such arguments have proven too painfully wrong. The authorities must prove their claims like everyone else. [21]. Frequent short expressions: 1-400, 401-800, 801-1200 An example of the mistake of turning to an authority in an unrelated field would be to cite Albert Einstein as the authority for a determination on religion if his primary expertise lies in physics. [35] Scientists have found that certain environments can create an ideal situation in which these processes can prevail, leading to groupthink. [47] In groupthink, individuals in a group feel inclined to minimize conflict and promote compliance. By appealing to authority, a group member could present this opinion as a consensus and encourage other group members to engage in groupthink by not contradicting that perceived consensus or authority. [48] [49] An article on the philosophy of mathematics notes that in academia, a more recent example included the article “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality” published in 2014.

The document was a scam based on falsified data, but concerns about it were ignored in many cases due to calls to authority. An analysis of the case notes that “LaCour`s seemingly impossible findings have been repeatedly treated as the truth in the scientific community and the media, in part because of the weight [of the study`s co-author], who bore Green`s name.” [32] One psychologist explained that his reaction to the article was: “It`s very surprising and doesn`t fit into a huge literature of evidence. That does not seem plausible to me. [then I pull it up and] I see that Don Green is a writer. I trust him completely, so I no longer doubt. Forger LaCour used calls to authority to defend his research: “When his answers sometimes seemed to lack depth, when pushed for details, his impressive relationships often dispelled concerns,” as one of his partners notes, “when he and I really disagreed, he often relied on the kind of arguments, where he would essentially invoke authority, would he not? He is the one who has advanced training, and his advisor is this very powerful, very experienced person. and they know a lot more than we do. [32] Another study that sheds light on the psychological basis of error in relation to perceived authorities is Milgram`s experiments, which showed that people are more likely to agree with something when presented by an authority. [46] In a variant of a study in which researchers did not wear lab coats, thereby reducing the perceived authority of the tasker, the degree of obedience fell to 20% from the initial rate, which had been above 50%. Obedience is encouraged by reminding the individual of what a perceived authority is saying and showing them that their opinion violates that authority.

[46] Scientific knowledge is better supported by evidence and experimentation, rather than by authority[16][17][18], since authority has no place in science. [17] [19] [20] Carl Sagan wrote about arguments of authority:. . . .