Appeal to Authority: When trusting experts becomes a logical fallacy

[@Devin7Eleven]

1. Qualifications doesn’t mean its impossible for you to lie, be wrong, or not be automatically trustworthy. Specialization doesn’t mean they can’t say true things about a subject they don’t have an official paper in. 2. Checking for bias is important 3. Truth isn’t predicated by how many people believe it. The majority CAN be wrong. If the scientific consensus is biased then the whole industry is corrupted

[@Lionoid_Eagleshark]

That's why he said "more often than not".

[@thesciencelens]

Everything you said is true. But it's about playing the odds. A specialist's opinion on their area of expertise is more likely to be correct than a non-specialist. The consensus of 100 specialists is more likely to be correct that the opinion of 1. And a single expert is more likely to be biased than an entire group. Of course, it's important to remain vigilant because science can get it wrong and systems can be flawed. But as non-specialists we have to remain humble about our understanding of specific topics, which is why, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's safer to trust science.

[@lapimano2]

​@@thesciencelensI think your argument is flawed, and i will try to showcase the problem here with an analogy. (I assume the premises you provided are true for example: ":And a single expert is more likely to be biased than an entire group." Although I don't see that you backed these claims up with anything, but for the sake of this argument i will look away from that for now). So the analogy: Lets imagine someone is brought into court for murder charges, and his lawyer says that only 0.001 of people are murderers (I just made this number up to showcase a very small percentage) and therefore its very unlikely that his client is indeed a murderer, and therefore the charges should be dropped. According to the logic you presented, where "it's about the odds" the lawyer's argument is correct, when in reality we obviously know its not. Actually in that case there were information available which indicated that in that specific case the percentage should be much higher (for example he was caught red handed). The main problem here is that a general rule is used as a basis, and while the general rule can be true in itself, after closer inspection there are other important factors which would greatly alter the odds and those factors are disregarded. I think it is kind of a "fallacy" related to "supression of evidence" or "cherry picking" or the "accident fallacy". I think when its abut trusting a scientists (or anything in general) its important to weigh in other factors, other than their expertise and the consensus (aka appeal to authority/popularity fallacy). An easy example for these factors would be to look after the interest of the scientist: who is supporting them with money (sorry for bad english), also an other one: to look for political interests behind it: if a controversial theory comes from a well known dictatorship (or something similar in some regards), who is advocating certain ideologies just like the nazi Germany was, or the USSR, than it automatically should raise doubt about the integrity of the theory.

[@jonathanb9889]

Imagine living around the 1900s and betting on a static universe because you knew what a "hundred scientist" believed. Now, a hundred years later, we wonder how they all got it wrong and what might we believe today because we found another "hundred scientist" who "peer-reviewed" themselves into agreement.

[@thesciencelens]

There are, of course, plenty of examples of when the scientific consensus was wrong. The problem is those examples are more salient that the times it was right, which are much more common. This is what I mean when I say it's about playing the odds. If you had gone against the scientific consensus in the 1900s it's unlikely you would have said that the Universe was expanding (because there was no available evidence to suggest so), so you would have been wrong. If you go against the scientific consensus today you would still be wrong. If you had believed the scientific consensus, on the other hand, you would have been wrong in the 1900s but right today. So, science doesn't always get it right, but it's a safer bet.

[@thedoc5848]

​@@thesciencelensso you agree that consensus can not establish truth

[@Ana_crusis]

That particular phenomenon is not really about an appeal to authority it's about the general state of human knowledge. It has become a well-known fact that half the information medical students learn, for example, will be considered to be untrue within 10 to 20 years. It's actually referred to as the half-life of facts. And of course it is the case in any branch of knowledge.

[@devinharwood6010]

When I learned about this, I immediately thought of Andrew Huberman pushing supplements and people taking it as law because he’s a neuroscientist 😂

[@adventurousappetite]

This is really interesting. I didn't know this was a logical fallacy, but it makes sense. Especially when we think in terms of social media influencers, or how much faith we put in one expert without seeking additional research or opinions. Loving your videos!

[@thesciencelens]

Yeah it's a tough one because it's important to trust the opinions of experts, but it when we get conflicting messages it can be hard to know who's right. Thanks for watching!

[@aaronbrown8377]

Technically, always. Realistically, use your best judgement.

[@thesciencelens]

It's true. We can discuss flawed logic all day but in the real world there will always be a need to compromise.

[@eddieb8337]

Assumes that there is no bias in Google's search algorithms...

[@thesciencelens]

Very true. We definitely need to be careful about that.

[@theblackdouglas24]

What about if they’ve been bribed or blackmailed to make statements?

[@marksesl]

I really appreciate the information regarding Google Scholar. I had never heard of that before.

[@thesciencelens]

I'm glad I could help. Pub Med is also a great place to search for peer reviewed articles but I find Google Scholar a bit more user-friendly.

[@Ana_crusis]

The fact is that we do have to trust experts we can't, practically, ask them to prove their qualifications all the time. we actually presume that they've got them. sometimes they fool us. There are cases of entirely unqualified people working in hospitals and passing themselves off as doctors for example. but in general they don't. The thing about the appeal to authority is, it is not always fallacious. We use expert opinion, which is a type of appeal to authority, all the time in our legal situations in law courts for example. Pathologists are called in to give expert statements on things like the cause of death especially if the pathologist is the person who carried out the autopsy. The legal profession and everybody else accept that these medically trained doctors do in fact know what they are talking about and have the authority to assert certain things such as the cause of death. If We didn't accept that they had any special authority to make any announcements like that then there would be no point in calling them as a witness in a court case at all. they would have the same standard of acceptance as any bystander.

[@Hellformer_]

Good video

[@thesciencelens]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@kre8myf8]

The way you debunk an argument that uses an appeal to authority is the same way you debunk any fallacious argument; you first verify the premises of the argument, and show where those are wrong, then you follow the logic in between the premises and the conclusion, and show where the logic is wrong. If your data isn't better than the person with the offensive argument, or if you can't identify a lapse in logic between the data and the conclusion, then you can't claim that the offensive argument is wrong...even if they are biased non-experts going against the scientific consensus.

[@thesciencelens]

Hi Troy. Thanks for the feedback. But I think you've misunderstood the purpose of my advice. As soon as someone says 'X is true because Person Y said so', the fallacy has been committed, but just because someone has used a logical fallacy in an argument, that doesn't make them wrong. So, my advice about checking qualifications and consensus was about determining whether the person had used an appeal to false authority (in which case they're more likely to be wrong) or an appeal to legitimate authority (in which case they're more likely to be right). I think what you're suggesting is that a person should be able to determine whether an argument is sound based solely on logic, but when dealing with esoteric scientific concepts, most people don't have the specialised knowledge required to do so. In this case, we have no choice but to defer to an authority, so we have to do what we can to make sure that authority is the most reliable.

[@kre8myf8]

@The Science Lens I agree that once a person has used a fallacy, that doesn’t make them wrong; it would actually be fallacy to assume otherwise. That wasn't my argument. My argument is that using qualifications and consensus to make a point is a fallacy. It's an appeal to authority, and shouldn't be used in any logical proof. What you're describing is nothing more than trust. We use it when we don't have the time or capacity to break down an argument. People we trust are more likely to give us information that fits our own understanding and biases, but that doesn't mean the information is objectively sound. Authority has no place in a formal argument, since the logic supporting formal arguments start with finite premises that can be verified independent of any authority, then the premises follow established rules of logic and end with a sound conclusion... all independent of authority. When you suggest that the people who don't have the knowledge or training to break down conclusions made by an expert, have no choice but to believe an authority, you've replaced logic with trust (aka faith). I agree. Sometimes we don't understand all the pieces of an idea, and are forced to place our faith in somebody we believe knows enough to be considered an authority, but let's not call it logic.

[@lukescholtes]

@@kre8myf8 I see your point. I'll keep it in mind when making future videos and maybe try to make the distinction clearer.

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@thesciencelens I think you are confused. A fallacy of authority is made if no argument is made, whether or not the expertise is real or imaginary. Therefore devoting a video to assessing expertise is pointless and ironically only underlines the fallacy. You clearly are impressed by supposed expertise rather than arguments!

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@kre8myf8 For what its worth I agree 100% with your argument and The Science Lens doesn't know what hes talking about and is ironically committing the fallacy of authority by being very concerned in most of the video to check peoples authority. Of course my agreement with you is not an argument but I refer back to each of the arguments both have already made.

[@alanrobertson9790]

Time index 1.30. "People believed not because of the evidence presented but because they saw him as an authority" (not vebatim). Precisely, this is the fallacy of authority! Why then is the rest of the video devoted to checking, one, two, three fashion on the credentials of people making claims! Can't you see that this is falling into the precise trap of the fallacy of authority. A claim is substatiated by the quality of the argument or data presented not by the expertise of the presenter be this real or fallacious. Arguments are not won based on the qualifications of the man making the argument, but by the argument.

[@thesciencelens]

Hi Alan. Thanks for commenting. You're right that assuming a person is correct based on their credentials is a logical fallacy, whether that person is qualified or not. But there's a significant difference between a legitimate appeal to authority (where a person is an expert discussing their area of expertise) and an appeal to false authority. It's not reasonable to expect most people to have sufficient knowledge of esoteric topics to determine whose argument is strongest when two experts disagree. So, my advice on checking credentials and consensus is not meant to help people determine who has the strongest argument, but rather whose information and opinion is most likely correct. As I mention in the video 'Sometimes we do just need to trust experts', and this approach helps us make sure that trust is well placed without having to go out and get a science degree.

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@thesciencelens "But there's a significant difference between a legitimate appeal to authority (where a person is an expert discussing their area of expertise) and an appeal to false authority". No there is no difference at all! If correctness depends on whether an argument is valid, or data is presented then who states it is irrelevant. In this situation expertise or not is logically redundant. Think of it this way, A) An expert says X but presents no evidence B) An expert says X with evidence C) An non-expert says X with evidence. Which of these is most persuasive? To my mind B) and C) are equally persuasive and A) has no value at all. The value of an argument depends on the argument, who is saying it matters not. The fallacy of expertise or authority is believing something because of the credentials of who is saying it when no or only a weak argument is presented. Within the scientific method what weight is given to expertise, numbers of people believing or consensus. Answer nothing at all. I can give you a hierarchy of proof but this isn't it.

[@thesciencelens]

From a strictly logical perspective, sure, there is no difference between those two types of appeal to authority. But strict logic and the messiness of the world don't always jibe. And in practice there is certainly a difference. To continue your examples, let's say expert A makes and argument with evidence and expert B makes an argument with evidence. Who should a lay person believe? They don't have the expertise to evaluate the validity of the evidence/arguments, so they have to choose who to put their trust in. The odds are that if expert A is more qualified and is in agreement with other experts then they're argument is more likely correct. What I try to do with these videos is not to teach logic, but how we can think about these problems through a scientific lens.

[@alanrobertson9790]

@@thesciencelens As an aside, but from your example, where 2 experts each give some contradictory evidence without coming to a decisive conclusion the trick is to identify the key deciding factor. For example there was an actual youtube religious debate where one side points to the suffering of religious wars and the other the good works of those who believe. The key factor is what constitutes proof and how does religious belief compare to that. As I said in another comment I dont think comparing credentials is part of the scientific process.

[@thesciencelens]

@@alanrobertson9790 Sure, if you can identify an issue with the argument, then by all means use logic as the basis of your decision. But sometimes people aren't able to do that. Other times they may have more confidence in their understanding of an argument than they should. You're right, it's not part of the scientific method. But the scientific community as a general rule places value on qualifications and consensus.