Appeal to authority
"I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."
In an appeal to authority, something is claimed to be true based on the expertise of an authority rather than objective facts. In some ways this is the opposite of the ad hominem argument. Such an appeal is not always a fallacy, but there are certain things to look out for:
1. Find out if the person is really an expert in the field. Sometimes it is obvious that a person is not an expert. For example, the actor who plays a doctor, or the attorney general of Colorado weighing in on global warming. Less obvious, and therefore more dangerous, are claims made by those who seem to be experts. For example, Dr. Sallie Baliunas is often used as an authority on ozone depletion. She even testified before congress (Monastersky). But Baliunas is an astrophysicist, and has never done any research on ozone depletion. For those interested in the anti-environmental brownlash, the Environmental Policy Task Force has produced a Directory of Environmental Scientists and Economists, which gives the qualifications of 140 people (no pro-environmental scientists or economists appear on the list). CLEAR has produced a review of this directory called Show Me The Science!
Remember that in areas of policy and values, scientists have no more authority than any other citizens. They may state the probable results of implementing (or not implementing) a particular policy, but there role stops there. If a scientific prediction is accompanied by a policy opinion, there is a very good chance that the scientist is biased.. (Gelbspan, pages 58-59)
2. Anonymous authority. If the experts are not named, then there is no way to check their qualifications. Thus the claims that some scientists believe something, or some scientists disagree are fallacies. Dogma is the appeal to a generalized belief system, for example "science tells us that perpetual motion machines are impossible."
3. . If the experts on a subject, such as much of economics, do not agree then an appeal to authority is not a valid argument. In many areas there is widespread agreement, but there is still a valid minority.. For example, the number of experts who believe that humans are causing climate change is much greater than those who disagree. (And the scientific debate has largely shifted from wether change is going to occur to how much change is going to occur and what the impacts will be.) While the minority may eventually prove to be correct, policy decisions should be based on the scientific consensus. And the minority view should not be presented as the accepted view, or as having equal weight.
4. Biases may be caused by ideology, or by accepting funds that have strings attached. For example members of the Creation Research Society must subscribe to a statement of belief (see Shermer pages 166-167) :
(1) The Bible is the written Word of God...This means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. (2) All basic living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis....(3) The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly refered to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect...
In this case it is obvious that science is secondary to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Unfortunately, biases are not always that obvious. Just having a political view or accepting money is not proof of bias. (And of course all scientists have to receive funding from somewhere.) The important question on funding is if the scientist is giving her expert opinion, or that of the funder. Some clues that bias may be present.
Including policy opinions with the science
Trying to hide the source of funding
Leaving out the usual scientific qualifiers
Loudly proclaiming that they are neutral or not biased
Selling products after endorsing them
References
Gelbspan , Ross, The Heat is on: The High Stakes Battle over Earth's Threatened Climate, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1997.
Monastersky, Richard, "Ozone on Trial". Science News, Vol. 148, October 7, 1995, p 238. A look at the ozone depletion hearings in congress.
Shermer, Michael Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Times, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997.
Additional reading
NEW Trust Us, We're Experts! How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with your Future (Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam 2001) by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. While most of the book is an examination of the public relations it also contains information on "third part experts", those who claim to be independent but are actually indirectly paid by special interests. Also has a chapter on evaluating experts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Written by Jim Norton
Visit my practical skepticism page
Visit my correcting anti-environmental myths home page.
The text on these pages may be freely copied, distributed and posted as long as my name, this statement and the URL (http://info-pollution.com/appeal.htm) are included.