Argument from authority From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Appeal to authority)
[/link]
Authoritative argument (also known as appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam) is a special type of [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning]inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1]
Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.[1][2][3]
Contents   [hide] 
1 Forms 1.1 Fallacious appeals to authority 2 See also 3 References 4 External links [edit]Forms The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.a says p about S.Therefore, p is correct. The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion. These conditions may also simply be incorporated into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]
X holds that A is trueX is a legitimate expert on the subject.The consensus of experts agrees with X.Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true. [edit]Fallacious appeals to authority Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]
Secondly, because the argument is inductive (which in this sense implies 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 an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]
[edit]See also Credentialism Groupthink Ipse dixit Logical fallacy Name-dropping Precedent

sorry i was too lazy to actually format that, but digging again and again for some "authority" that you claim to agree with your claim does not make it any more or less valid. I think we can all agree that nobody has been convinced so the ol agree to disagree seems like the logical next step

Well R.Edwards you win the prize, even though copying **** out of wikipedia is cheating
 
But I understood the argument, from wikipedia, the funny thing nobody is a full on expert on this stuff, you have the audio engineers, arguing with the maths heads and the artist, hey for one second lets think outside the box and just imagine!!!
 
Neb

i did not hide the fact i copied it.  i wanted my immediate source to be clear.  I think you are fully entitled to your own opinion.  I know there are plenty of things that i believe and do that it seems nobody agrees with.  There just comes a point where re-stating the same point and grasping to find people who agree (and it's debatable whether the sources actually do agree ) becomes counter-productive.  i suspect if you were less insistent, you might get more people to at least look at the meat and bones of your argument instead of feeling compelled to personalize the discussion.  i honestly hope you are right.  I like underdogs.  Hell, I am still rooting for the heaven's gate people and truly hope a spaceship picked them up!

dubdisciple


i did not hide the fact i copied it.  i wanted my immediate source to be clear.  I think you are fully entitled to your own opinion.  I know there are plenty of things that i believe and do that it seems nobody agrees with.  There just comes a point where re-stating the same point and grasping to find people who agree (and it's debatable whether the sources actually do agree ) becomes counter-productive.  i suspect if you were less insistent, you might get more people to at least look at the meat and bones of your argument instead of feeling compelled to personalize the discussion.  i honestly hope you are right.  I like underdogs.  Hell, I am still rooting for the heaven's gate people and truly hope a spaceship picked them up!

No I got that mate, I know what you were saying that's why you got the prize.
 
The only problem with your above argument is it's those of us who are a little pushy, tend to be that way for a certain reason and it "can" allow you to see with a certain clarity, I'm not claiming it to be the case with me but all mad genius's tend to be that way.  In your face, pushy and 101 other descriptive words I can think of.  This is why they are mad genius's, they don't tow the consesus, forum or party line.
 
This lot couldn't see the fairy dust from the pickle water. LOL
 
Ok I'd better not continue, I could go on for hours stirring the pickle water.
 
Neb 

BenMMusTech...
 
The only problem with your above argument is it's those of us who are a little pushy, tend to be that way for a certain reason and it "can" allow you to see with a certain clarity, I'm not claiming it to be the case with me but all mad genius's tend to be that way.  In your face, pushy and 101 other descriptive words I can think of.  This is why they are mad genius's, they don't tow the consesus, forum or party line.
 
This lot couldn't see the fairy dust from the pickle water. LOL
 
Ok I'd better not continue, I could go on for hours stirring the pickle water.
 
Neb 

So, basically, you're saying you're a genius and anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?

Chappel

BenMMusTech...

The only problem with your above argument is it's those of us who are a little pushy, tend to be that way for a certain reason and it "can" allow you to see with a certain clarity, I'm not claiming it to be the case with me but all mad genius's tend to be that way.  In your face, pushy and 101 other descriptive words I can think of.  This is why they are mad genius's, they don't tow the consesus, forum or party line.

This lot couldn't see the fairy dust from the pickle water. LOL

Ok I'd better not continue, I could go on for hours stirring the pickle water.

Neb 

So, basically, you're saying you're a genius and anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?

 
Hello K-9, or is it Mitt, I'm not sure, "would you like a jelly baby?"

No here is my statement: The only problem with your above argument is it's those of us who are a little pushy, tend to be that way for a certain reason and it "can" allow you to see with a certain clarity, I'm not claiming it to be the case with me but all mad genius's tend to be that way. In your face, pushy and 101 other descriptive words I can think of. This is why they are mad genius's, they don't tow the consesus, forum or party line. 
See the bold italic underline, I may be infering it but that is another game of fairy dust and pickle water!!
 
Neb
 

The more defining characteristic of a genius is that they tend to reach insightful and correct conclusions faster than others, which is the exact inverse of what you've been doin in this series of threads. This ones actually my favourite. Paul Frindle says the opposite of what you think he does. 

John T


The more defining characteristic of a genius is that they tend to reach insightful and correct conclusions faster than others, which is the exact inverse of what you've been doin in this series of threads. This ones actually my favourite. Paul Frindle says the opposite of what you think he does. 

God MrT, I pitty the fool.  I say everything with a dash of salt and pinch of whatever.  It all leads to good fun.  I never said I was a genius, i infered I might be, big difference.  It will be up to history to judge me.
 
Sorry MrT you really have to learn that when you wear your shirt backwards everything comes out forward even poo!!!
 
Neb

You don't have to wait for history. You're not a genius.