Analysis: Argument From Authority

Yesterday I posted my list of definitions and assumptions to be considered as bearing upon the question of the Argument From Authority and its validity.

Absent any criticism of the definitions and assumptions, an analysis follows. I am sure that you will feel free to critique, and then we can discuss it:

Statement of the issue:

(In opinions on topic Z) We must submit to (the opinions of ) authority (on topic Z).

First the auxiliary verb, “must”, is an imperative, expressing command, requirement, obligation, or necessity”. [Merriam-Webster, 2004]

As an imperative, it is not possible to deviate from the dictates of the principle stated, without acquiring some unstated consequence, presumably in this case, lack of intellectual respect, at a minimum. Regardless of the consequence, the statement presents a rigid, absolute requirement to be observed in argumentation. This does not refer to requirements for obtaining empirical, first order data or any other empirical activity. It is merely a tactic of argumentation.

Assumptions about us:

a) We have less knowledge/expertise than the authority.

Assumption “a)” is not provable, empirically, without serious testing. However, as a presupposition it is difficult to argue against.

b) We are unable to attain sufficient knowledge/expertise to adequately comprehend and analyze topic Z.

Assumption “b)” is an arrogation that is likely false in many cases, while true in others; this makes it a “false association fallacy”. However, this is a powerful argumentative attack on the opponent, which has the value of derailing the conversation, while denigrating the opponent’s abilities as presumed through credentialing. This has no bearing on the actual validity of the opponent’s arguments.

As an argumentation tactic, this is intended to be a show-stopper. As a logical proposition, it has no bearing whatsoever on Topic Z.

Assumptions about the authority:

a) The authority demonstrably has adequate intelligence, with training and experience in Topic Z.

This concern is valid, and easily demonstrated.

b) The authority demonstrably is intellectually honest and demonstrably capable in analytics.

This concern is valid, and not easily validated; therefore, it is a possible exception.

c) The authority is motivated solely by the pursuit of knowledge, without ulterior motivations, including but not exclusive to: messiahism, fame and fortune.

This concern is valid, and even less verifiable except by observing the long term behaviors of the “authority”, not all of which might be visible. This is definitely an exception.

d) The authority’s opinion is within the overwhelming majority opinion of others, similarly attributed. There is no credible dissent.

Here the argument of the qualification of the “majority” comes into play. If the authority in question holds any power (say peer review and ability to publish) over the definition of the composition of the “majority”, then this is definitely an exception.

e) The authority (and majority) operate within acceptable practices of open scholarship and replication under the scientific method.

This is a valid criterion.

Assumptions about the discussion:

a) The discussion is in the form of an argument, not in the form of analyzing data, data interpretation, experimental methods, etc.

The imperative cannot be considered to exist within the definition of the Scientific Method, so this statement is valid.

b) The discussion can be in the apparent form of a single premise syllogism.

Valid assumption.

Assumptions about Topic Z:

a) Topic Z is of the appearance of complexity and data acquisition which is outside the boundary of availability to the “us” in the argument.

This presumption is without merit as a general principle; it might apply in some cases, not in others. A fallacy of false association.

b) Topic Z has been described adequately by genuine and unbiased scientific method investigation. Data is scrupulously produced and maintained. Data is genuinely analyzed and not manipulated toward a conclusion. There is no authoritative doubt remaining in the topic.

This is never a presumption concerning scientific method discoveries; objective replication is always required. This is not a valid presumption for argumentation, either, unless objective replication is done.

c) All data is readily available to potential replicators; replication of data-taking (new data) can be independently taken in order to fulfill the necessity of attempting falsification.

The first part of this premise may be asserted if undeniable evidence for its validity is available.

The second part is an undeniable requirement of empiricism, and should be a requirement for valid argumentation.

Now, what do we have?

Considering that there are numerous valid qualifications concerning the application of the absolute imperative statement, then the statement cannot be absolute. Why should it be considered imperative, concerning the qualifications that must be met for it to be a valid prescription for behavior? In other words, what motivates the use of such an device in argumentation?

The device does not present information concerning the Topic. It is a fundamental attack on the opponent, with an underlying presupposition of the opponent’s non-qualifications: an Ad Hominem Abusive. In John Locke’s terms, it is intended to induce shame and retreat.


It also is intended to derail the conversation, even halt it: a Red Herring.

From Walton, "Appeal To Expert Opinion":

” Jeremy Bentham describes the qualifications for authority:

1. adequate intelligence.
2. relative probity (honesty).
3. closeness of the opinion to the subject at hand.
4. fidelity of transmission; correctness and completeness.

He also includes expertise, with the claim that the ratio of knowledge of a subject between two individuals inversely determines the need to trust the authority figure. Yet he also claims that if objective “direct evidence” is available, then the persisting appeal to authority is fallacious.

The argument is designed to leave no room for reply; it is an attack on the other’s personal ability to judge evidence; it deflects the argument from evidence into the qualifications of the authority vs those of the respondent; it is Ad Hominem: “well, you’re not an expert, are you?”; an accusation of arrogance.

Rather than an assertion of a valid evidentiary proposition regarding the subject, it is, “…more like a decisive blocking or shutting-down type of move in argumentation that blocks off the respondent’s ability to raise any further questions or meaningfully or effectively take part in attempting to support his side of the issue any further in the dialogue.” (from "Appeal To Expert Opinion"; Douglas N. Walton, referred by Martin)(emphasis added)

In terms of logic and a rational search for valid answers, the Argument from Authority seems conclusively to be at odds with that pursuit. So it cannot be a valid position to assert in that pursuit.

In terms of winning an argument by forcing the default of the opponent, the Argument from Authority seems to be effective, IFF the opponent accepts the challenge without protest. I personally do not accept the Argument From Authority Imperative/Directive as a valid challenge.

However, within any rational pursuit, the input of authorities is always a wise thing to seek, providing the conditions above are met. In some (many?) cases the opinions of experts vary to the point of direct contradiction and in some cases experts might not fulfill the qualifications required of them as stated above. In these cases other sources of information must be sought.

Comments appreciated, as always.