The ad verecundiam or authority fallacy is that premise that is based on the figure of an expert to argue that it is true and true. In other words, if someone with authority claims that something is true, it must be because that person says so..
The problem with this fallacy is that, like all fallacies, it uses a deceptive argument instead of evidence. Something that an expert says is not necessarily true, and to demonstrate the premise, evidence will have to be presented.
(legend: The ad verecundiam fallacy is the one that, to prove its validity, points to an expert in the field. The ancient Greeks used the expression Magister Dixit (the teacher said it) as sufficient proof of something)
For example, to say that gravity exists because Newton said it is an ad verecundiam fallacy, since the argument on which it is based is that Newton said it, not that it is an attraction that all objects with mass experience among themselves..
Notice that the fallacy is not in the postulate, but in the argument: gravity exists, but not because Newton said it. That is, the premise is correct but the reasoning is not..
Ad verecundiam means "to respect", to venerate, therefore a synonym is the saying by the Pythagoreans: magister dixit, that is, the teacher said it (and if the teacher, the expert, the one with authority says it, it must be true).
The ad verecundiam fallacy has several characteristics:
What is obvious from the first glance is that they do not do tests to show that something is true if that was said by a person of authority. Let's analyze the classic case of the ad verecundiam fallacy:
"The square root of 2 is irrational because Euclid said it was so".
This is an ad verecundiam fallacy because the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational is not that Euclid said it but because the mathematical proofs indicate that it cannot be expressed as the division of two whole numbers.
For those who use this fallacy, the proof is sufficient by alluding to the authority figure, and nothing else.
The moral quality of the authority figure displaces the validity of the premise. If we assume that the "sky is blue" because Newton said it, and Newton knew what he was talking about because he was a recognized physicist who laid the foundations of physics, that will be reason enough to accept a premise as true..
In other words, the only reason the sky is blue is because Newton said so. Therein lies the fallacy, that no evidence of any kind is provided and what the authority figure has said on the subject is accepted without discussion.
As we have seen in the examples, so far the premises are true, since the fallacy lies in the argument to prove them (the magister dixit we talked about before). The fact that they are true does not mean that the argument is valid.
The ad verecundiam fallacies are structured with the following logical scheme:
Here we have a case in which the premise is not true, and the reason is based on what "an expert" says. This is especially notable when the experts do not all agree on the concepts. In these cases, the one who wields the fallacy will choose the opinion that best suits him to support his own argument..
At first glance, when a person bases his argument on the fact that someone with authority on the subject says so, we are faced with an ad verecundiam fallacy. As we have already said, something is not true just because an expert says it, and the argument must point to the evidence to prove it..
Although in academic, scientific or technical essays expressions of the type "as so and so said, we agree with stating that ..." are used very frequently, in these cases the reasons why they agree are usually stated , and the reference to the expert is just one more endorsement.
Advertising has made use of several fallacies on its way to persuasion, and the ad verecundiam fallacy is one more. We can recognize it when there are recognized figures in an area supporting a product that they do not know in depth.
Some examples: a soccer player recommending an insurance agency, an actress advising on a specific type of lenses for myopia, a well-known academic recommending a car ...
Advertising uses these types of people to say that the products you want to sell are good depending on who is exhibiting them. If Messi drinks a Pepsi cola, this drink must be good, because Messi is a great footballer.
The argument is not valid in any of the cases because generally the experts are it in other fields; If the footballer were talking about sports shoes or balls or grass for the field, there would be more relationship between his area of expertise and what he recommends.
In the press something similar to advertising happens, usually in the field of politics: when prominent figures (presidents, deputies, senators, etc.) base their arguments on something that another, equal or more representative than them, said.
Or when the same journalists refer opinions of well-known figures in support or in rejection of certain positions (this is what is known as "spokesman jargon"): "For Trump it is indisputable that there is a worldwide conspiracy against him".
Below you can see several examples of cases in which the fallacy of authority or ad verecundiam occurs:
Yet No Comments