Yes an authority can be an expert, but being an authority does not implicitly mean you are an expert.
That’s what I wanted to say. I was just trying to clarify that the “authority” in the “appeal to authority” doesn’t mean just someone who has for example political power, some government ministry or something like that but it can be an “authority in the field” or “authority in the subject” which usually comes through their expertise.
I think you may be misinterpreting this. An appeal to authority in and of itself cannot be logical proof, but it can be part of the body of evidence that supports a logical proof. Logical proof is defined as a series of statements that show how a conclusion formed from a set of premises.
It just sounds like you’re describing what I’ve said earlier. It’s not logical proof in itself but can support it. Not sure where we disagree.
You are referring to this particular case often in these messages and I think I need to clarify that I was just talking in general terms, trying to note that the authority in question can have genuine expertise. It’s just not logical proof in itself, which is why (some) consider it a fallacy if it used that way. Again, not speaking specifically of this case with Musk’s heiling.
doesn’t mean just someone who has for example political power, some government ministry or something like that but it can be an “authority in the field” or “authority in the subject” which usually comes through their expertise.
That’s the thing though, It very well can be and often is just a government minister without experience. The Authority in appeal to authority doesn’t dictate whether something is fallacious. Its whether or not utilizing their authority as evidence is logical or not.
The example on Wikipedia isn’t a fallacy because he was an authority/expert. It was that using personal testimony isn’t how you logically determine scientific fact.
just sounds like you’re describing what I’ve said earlier. It’s not logical proof in itself but can support it. Not sure where we disagree.
Because you can’t logically support proof with a logical fallacy. Meaning that expert testimony that logically supports an assertion is not a logical fallacy.
That’s the thing though, It very well can be and often is just a government minister without experience. The Authority in appeal to authority doesn’t dictate whether something is fallacious. Its whether or not utilizing their authority as evidence is logical or not.
The example on Wikipedia isn’t a fallacy because he was an authority/expert. It was that using personal testimony isn’t how you logically determine scientific fact.
I’m not sure what’s happening. You’re repeating what I’ve been saying the whole time, again. What’s going on?
That’s what I wanted to say. I was just trying to clarify that the “authority” in the “appeal to authority” doesn’t mean just someone who has for example political power, some government ministry or something like that but it can be an “authority in the field” or “authority in the subject” which usually comes through their expertise.
It just sounds like you’re describing what I’ve said earlier. It’s not logical proof in itself but can support it. Not sure where we disagree.
You are referring to this particular case often in these messages and I think I need to clarify that I was just talking in general terms, trying to note that the authority in question can have genuine expertise. It’s just not logical proof in itself, which is why (some) consider it a fallacy if it used that way. Again, not speaking specifically of this case with Musk’s heiling.
That’s the thing though, It very well can be and often is just a government minister without experience. The Authority in appeal to authority doesn’t dictate whether something is fallacious. Its whether or not utilizing their authority as evidence is logical or not.
The example on Wikipedia isn’t a fallacy because he was an authority/expert. It was that using personal testimony isn’t how you logically determine scientific fact.
Because you can’t logically support proof with a logical fallacy. Meaning that expert testimony that logically supports an assertion is not a logical fallacy.
I’m not sure what’s happening. You’re repeating what I’ve been saying the whole time, again. What’s going on?