Appeal to authority

[wj097]

Hi, contrast to appeal to INAPPROPRIATE authority, would appeal to APPROPRIATE authority consider a flaw in reasoning? Would you even consider the following argument as appealing to authority??

"Dr. Treviso, a cardiopulmonary specialist, has stated that humans are physiologically incapable of holding their breath for even half that long; so Amos claim that he can hold his breath under water for a full hour cannot be true"

Thx

[rinagoldfield]

I’m not sure if I totally follow your question but I’ll give answering it my best shot...

The example you gave:

"Dr. Treviso, a cardiopulmonary specialist, has stated that humans are physiologically incapable of holding their breath for even half that long; so Amos claim that he can hold his breath under water for a full hour cannot be true"

appeals to two authorities. It appeals to the authority of Dr. Treviso as a "specialist," and it appeals to the authority of Amos’s experience. The issue is which authority to trust.
This argument seems to arbitrarily trust the "specialist" over Amos’s lived experience. But why?

LR questions sometimes play with conflicting authoritative accounts, just like your example does. Appealing to authority isn’t necessarily a reasoning flaw, but arbitrarily trusting one authority over another is.

I’m not sure if this is what you're asking though. Let me know if your question is different...

[wj097]

I’m not sure if I totally follow your question but I’ll give answering it my best shot...

The example you gave:

"Dr. Treviso, a cardiopulmonary specialist, has stated that humans are physiologically incapable of holding their breath for even half that long; so Amos claim that he can hold his breath under water for a full hour cannot be true"

appeals to two authorities. It appeals to the authority of Dr. Treviso as a "specialist," and it appeals to the authority of Amos’s experience. The issue is which authority to trust.
This argument seems to arbitrarily trust the "specialist" over Amos’s lived experience. But why?

LR questions sometimes play with conflicting authoritative accounts, just like your example does. Appealing to authority isn’t necessarily a reasoning flaw, but arbitrarily trusting one authority over another is.

I’m not sure if this is what you're asking though. Let me know if your question is different...

Thanks for the useful insight!

Below 3 situations would better illustrate what I am grappling with.
1) A is a renown expert in food science. A claims "milk is bad for your bone". Therefore, milk is indeed bad for your bone.

2) A is a renown expert in food science. A claims "milk is bad for your bone". Therefore, milk is likely to be bad for your bone.

3) B is a renown expert in astronomy. B claims "milk is bad for your bone". Therefore, milk is likely to be bad for your bone.

4) B is a renown expert in astronomy. B claims "milk is bad for your bone". However, A who is an expert in food science denies that B's statement is true. Therefore, B's claim is false.

5) B is a renown expert in astronomy. B claims "milk is bad for your bone". However, A who is an expert in food science denies that B's statement is true. Therefore, B's claim is likely to be false.

[rinagoldfield]

Aah, I see your question, wj.

Here are my thoughts on each of the scenarios you presented:

1. definitely exhibits a reasoning flaw. The LSAT never equates an individual’s opinion (even an expert’s opinion) with absolute truth.

2. is trickier! I can imagine an LR question framing this as a flaw. However, I don’t recall encountering a problem that does this. Is there a specific problem you’re thinking of here?

It’s important to be skeptical of all opinions on the LR section, since LR is all about parsing out facts from subjective claims. So I’d be wary of this scenario. However, I’m curious to see an example if you have one.

3. definitely exhibits a reasoning flaw. This argument offers no justification for equating the astronomer’s opinion with truth.

4. is also definitely wrong, for the same reason as (1). LR never accepts a subjective claim as absolutely true or false.

5. is also tricky. I’m wary of this conclusion, like was with (2)'s conclusion. But I want to see an actual problem that does this.

The big takeaway: view all opinions through a lens of skepticism!

What do you think? Do you have specific examples to discuss?

--Rina

[wj097]

I dont have specific examples for 3, 5, but I now have much better yard stick to judge how skeptical I should be! Thanks!

[rinagoldfield]

Hey wj,

I want to follow up on this issue of appropriate appeals to authority after giving it more thought. Arguments that appeal to authority can be appropriate when they

1. appeal to the authority’s stated area of expertise
2. don’t mention any evidence that might undermine the authority’s opinion (such eyewitness accounts, another authority’s opinion, or a conflict of interest)

An example of an argument that appeals to authority appropriately is PT 26, S3, Q16. This argument applies Adam Smith’s definition of free trade without any issue. It doesn’t simply hand us Smith’s definition as the conclusion, but it uses his definition to form another conclusion.

Be wary of arguments that simply give us the authority’s opinion as the conclusion. Two examples of arguments that do this:

PT6, S2, Q5: The museum security guard may be an "authority" on museum security, but we can’t necessarily trust his account. After all, he has a vested interest in portraying himself as a vigilant rather than a negligent guard on the night of the break-in.

PT42, S2, Q23: The physics professor is probably a physics "expert." But his argument is still bad.