Perhaps the most common form of fallacy is the argument by authority – Argumentum ad Verecundiam as it is formally called. It is a form of inductive-type argument where the person advances his argument by presenting a statistical syllogism, which argues the case from general to specific. Although certain arguments by authority lead to strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority carries little weight – the history of human kind is consistent with one fact : that is human error.
Sometimes fallacious arguments from authority are obvious because they are arguments from false authorities. These are often used in marketing – supermodels who push cosmetics or pro athletes pushing home loans or even sports equipments are likely false authorities. Like Pacquiao’s billboard, which I frequently see on my way home, with the big slogan saying “Pheonix ang gamit naming mga champeon!”
First, how does a boxing superstar have authority on what a good petrol product is? No offense to Pheonix and Pacquiao intended, I just wanted to point out a very common fallacy not just in marketing that is very misleading (intentional or not, it is wrong and should be taken care of). Or in the case of the supermodel or athlete, do they even use the product at all?
Second, we can assume that the supermodel is beautiful without the product and the pro athlete was successful without the equipment. And the millionaire athletes don’t need the kind of home loan you would.
To a degree, we also do well to differentiate between the different definitions of “authority”. Authority can mean either power or knowledge. In the case of knowledge, we often find we must trust people to help us make sense of the vast complex array of knowledge surrounding an issue – we do well, for example, in courtroom trials to consult psychologist and forensic specialists or trained meteorologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, etc. when debating global warming – but we should view these people as resources for understanding the logic and evidence, rather than as those given the final say concerning the issue.
We always face uncertainty – we can never see the whole picture no matter what we do as there is a limit to the capacity of data our brain can store and process. We, also, oftentimes draw erroneous judgements from circumstantial facts and no authority is exempt to that. Humans as we are, we are all infallible.
So, instead of blindly following an ideology, it is best if we step back a little and assess the picture for ourselves and test the validity of the notion not just from our perspective but using a larger scope using other point of views. Doing so can never be detrimental and on the contrary, it will pay you mountains of dividends in the long run.
If all of us blindly accepted what the Authority is dishing out, there would never be any real advancement in any field. The sum of human knowledge would be bounded by the preformed conceptions and notions of our forefathers and cultural upbringings. We may even believe, up to now, that the earth is flat. Exercise your sense of what is right and what is wrong rather than just relying on anybody to tell you what which is which.
Think outside the box.
¾ + ¼ = 1 