Fallacious: appeal to authority

I just love Dr. Lisle’s series on logical fallacies over at Answers in Genesis because they are perfect examples of how some people can completely misunderstand fallacies while simultaneously making both the fallacy as inanely described and the actual fallacy as correctly described. I’m going to go over each and every one of the fallacies in his list and dismantle his treatment where dismantling is deserved. Today we’re going to discuss the “Faulty Appeal to Authority“.

I thought that fellow blogger Bing over at Happy Jihad’s House of Pancakes did a delicious job with his treatment of this particular piece of Lisledrivel*, so I am not going to reinvent the wheel – merely expand upon his treatment and bring up a few points I think he missed (probably for the sake of not having an extensively long blog post). First, Lisle defines “faulty appeal to authority”.

The faulty appeal to authority is, in a way, the opposite of the ad hominem fallacy. Whereas the ad hominem fallacy denies a claim based on the person making it, the faulty appeal to authority endorses a claim simply based on the person making it. Essentially, the faulty appeal to authority is the argument that a claim is true simply because someone else believes it.

This is not quite correct. In philosophy literature, there is such a thing as an “appeal to authority” fallacy. A “faulty appeal to authority” is a very uncommon way of phrasing this, and I could not find this particular fallacy phrased this way in any of my fallacy websites or books on logic.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy in which someone makes the argument that a particular proposition is correct because the proposition is given by a source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The argument goes like this:

1. Source A says P
   
2. Source A is authoritative
   
3. Therefore P
   

Appeals to authority are quite important in informal logic because individuals cannot be experts on all things. Instead, we rely on the judgment of individuals who are experts in their particular field. The problem arises when an “expert” is not actually an expert in the field for which the claim is being made, or if the argument is treated as deductive logic, i.e. source says p, source is an authority, and therefore p must be true. In other words, an appeal to authority is a fallacy if the “authority” is not actually an authority in that area or if the authority is treated as infallible. Citing an actual authority on a given subject makes the proposition more likely to be true but does not guarantee its truth. An appeal to authority can never guarantee that a claim is true, but if the authority is a legitimate expert on the subject then it can make the claim more likely to be true.

The basic structure of the argument is this:

Bill believes X.

Therefore, X is true.

Of course, it is almost never stated this explicitly. Often, the person to whom the appeal is made is considered highly esteemed for one reason or another. But the truthfulness of the claim at issue is not necessarily relevant to the popularity of the individual making the claim.

Actually, Lisle is missing a necessary part of the basic structure of this argument/fallacy – Bill’s status as an authority, or the second premise in my example above.

In the origins debate, the faulty appeal is often to someone who is considered an expert on a particular topic—a scientist or perhaps a theologian. For example, “Dr. Bill has a PhD in biology, and he believes in evolution.” The unstated conclusion is that evolution must therefore be true or is at least likely to be true. But such an argument is fallacious. After all, we could equally point out that “Dr. Dave also has a PhD in biology, and he believes in biblical creation.” The fact that other experts on the topic draw the opposite conclusion should reveal the vacuous nature of the evolutionist’s argument.

It is unclear from the context of this argument that the unstated conclusion is that “evolution must therefore be true”. To cry fallacy before the conclusion is given is to assume the conclusion before one is made. If the arguer in this case claimed, “Dr. Bill has a Ph.D in biology and believes in evolution, therefore evolution must be true”, then one could claim that this is a fallacy. Otherwise, the statement is just that – a preposition. For all we know, the arguer intended to go on to say, “therefore some biologists believe in evolution”. To cry fallacy before an argument is made is to jump the gun. It’s really too bad that, “assuming the conclusion of an argument before the conclusion is given” isn’t a fallacy.

Another example would be this:

“Jim has a doctorate in theology, and he says it’s okay to believe in evolution and the Bible.”

Again, we could certainly find many qualified theologians who would state the exact opposite. While it is okay to consider what a theologian has to say about the Bible, it is infinitely more important to consider what the Bible actually states!

The problem with this is that people disagree on “what the bible actually states”. What Jim says about the Bible appears in this instance to be considering what a theologian has to say about the Bible. Again, we’re given no conclusion, so without that context we cannot assume that the person mentioning Jim intends to say that because Jim believes in evolution and the Bible, that evolution and the Bible are more likely to be true or are irrefutably true.

If an expert on U.S. law claimed that the Constitution does not contain the phrase “We the people,” would that make it so? We could easily refute his claim by simply reading from an actual copy of the Constitution. The fact that he is an expert does not override the evidence.

I think part of being an “expert” on U.S. law involves knowing the first words of the Constitution. Though, I will grant that what people say, whether experts or not, does not override evidence.

Next, Lisle explains that not all appeals to authority are faulty, and says that it is legitimate to consider the opinion of an expert. Obviously, I agree with this, but here is where Lisle continues to divorce himself from actual logic:

1. Appealing to an expert in an area that is not his area of expertise. Our hypothetical Dr. Bill may indeed have a PhD in biology—and that qualifies him to say something about how organisms function today. But does knowledge of how things work today necessarily imply knowledge of how things came to be? This is a separate question. The experiments Dr. Bill has done and the observations he has made have all taken place in the present world. He has no more direct observations of the ancient past than anyone else today.¹ The question of origins is a history question that deals with worldviews. It is not really a biology question, and, so, Dr. Bill’s opinion on the topic of origins isn’t necessarily any more qualified than any other opinion.
   

There is also a very important footnote here, “For some reason, it is common for people to think that paleontologist and geologists study the past. But this is not so. Rocks and fossils exist in the present (otherwise we wouldn’t have access to them). Although there is nothing wrong with speculating about past events (e.g., how fossils or rocks formed) and then testing the plausibility of such models with experiments in the present, we should keep in mind that the past is never actually observable or open to scientific investigation

Okay. For some reason it is common for people to think that historians and theologeans study the past. But this is not so. Historical documents, the Bible, and all of its associated artifacts, scrolls and what-not exist in the present. The past is never observable or open to scientific investigation. Therefore, if biologists are not qualified to say things about origins, neither are theologians or historians qualified to say things about origins.

Truth has nothing to do with people’s worldviews, and the question of origins is most emphatically not a question of history (which by Lisle’s own argument is unreliable) or worldview. If I come home from work and find a large pile of dog shit on the floor, I don’t need history and worldview to come to the conclusion that it was my dog, alone in my apartment all day, who shat on my floor rather than a shitgoblin. I can use inductive reasoning to arrive at the most probable conclusion.

1. Failure to consider the worldview of the expert and how this might affect his interpretation of the data. We all have a world-and-life view—a philosophy that guides our understanding of the universe. When we interpret scientific and historical evidence, we use this philosophy to draw conclusions.² The fact that Dr. Bill believes in evolution means that he is predisposed to interpret the evidence in a particular way. (My point is not to fault him for this; everyone has biases. Rather, we should simply be mindful of what his biases are). A creationist with the same credentials might draw a very different conclusion from the same data. So, while I may put confidence in what Dr. Bill says about the structure of a particular protein that he has studied under the microscope, his bias against biblical creation means it would be unwise for me to trust his opinions on questions of origins.
   

   Footnote: “Some evolutionists might claim that they have no philosophy—that our interpretations of evidence should be “neutral” and unbiased. But this is a philosophy in and of itself, albeit a very bad one since it is self-refuting.”
   

I’ll just quote Bing here: “The truth of the matter is independent of what the researcher’s beliefs about it are. Either something did happen or didn’t happen. The difference between the scientific worldview and that of Answers in Genesis is science starts with a null hypothesis, gathers evidence, comes up with the best explanation and then tests it again, discarding what doesn’t work and keeping what does. You write articles complaining about how scientists are playing unfair because they are pantsing you.”

The scientific method and skepticism are not worldviews. They are tools. Bill probably also has a “bias” against any of the other religious creation stories. Similarly, I suppose we should fault Dr. Lisle for having a bias against Native American creation stories. A creationist who believes in Biblical creation means he is predisposed to interpret evidence in a particular way. A creationist has a bias against evolution, so that means it would be unwise for me to trust his opinions on questions of origins.

The point is this: how did the biologist arrive at his conclusions about evolution? Hopefully he arrived at them using the scientific method.

How exactly is interpreting evidence using the most neutral and unbiased eye self-refuting? No explanation is offered.

1. Treating a fallible expert as infallible. We should also keep in mind that even experts do not know everything. They can make mistakes even in their own field. Some new discovery may cause a scientist to change his mind about something that he thought he knew. So, at best, appealing to an expert yields only a probable conclusion. It would be fallacious to argue that something definitely must be true simply because a (fallible) expert believes it.
   

I’ve never met a scientist who treats the opinions of any expert as infallible. This is a deliberate strawman. I do, however, meet creationists who treat the Bible, theologians, or their pastor as infallible. Also, the fact that the body of science is amenable to new evidence is an example of the strength of science, not a weakness. Imagine where we would be if science were unchangeable.

Lisle is absolutely correct that appealing to an expert leads only to a probable conclusion, but this is true about everything – there are no guarantees.

Of course, if the expert had knowledge of everything and never lied, then there would be no fallacy in accepting his statements as absolutely true. In fact, it would be absurd to not do so under those circumstances. The Bible claims to be such an infallible source—a revelation from the God who knows everything and cannot lie.³ Thus, there is no fallacy in appealing to Scripture as absolutely authoritative. Some evolutionists have mistakenly accused creationists of committing the faulty appeal to authority on this very issue.

See how Lisle commits the fallacy of the appeal to authority here? This is quite ironic. Just because the Bible claims to be an infallible source does not mean it is, any more than Bill claiming to be an infallible source means he is an infallible source. We have not “mistakenly” claimed that this is an appeal to authority – it is a primary example of the appeal to authority – treating a fallible expert (the Bible) as infallible.

Another type of faulty appeal to authority is the appeal to the majority. This is when a person argues that a claim must be true simply because most people believe it. But, of course, just because a majority of people believe something does not make it so. History is replete with examples of when the majority was totally wrong. Truth is not decided by a vote, after all.

Creationists do this all the time. I really wish Lisle would provide examples of when creationists commit fallacies alongside “evolutionist” fallacies.

The appeal to the majority is often combined with the appeal to an expert—an appeal to the majority of experts. Evolutionists often commit this double-fallacy; they try to support their case by pointing out:

“The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution. (Therefore, evolution is very likely to be true).”

However, simply adding two fallacies together does not form a good argument! Again, we could point to many historical examples of cases where the scientific consensus was dead wrong. Yet, people

As with a single expert, it is not fallacious to consider the opinion of a group of experts. However, as before, we should consider whether they are qualified in the issue under investigation, be mindful of their worldview and biases, and keep in mind that they are fallible people with finite knowledge.

So in other words, we should ignore the majority of experts if they disagree with the ultimate authority figure – my particular brand of god. Who cares if they start with the null hypothesis, gather information, test, come up with the best hypothesis, repeat, repeat, repeat, change their minds if different evidence is presented which is sufficient to contradict prior conclusions. They are unqualified because they are ignoring the infallible Bible. Is Lisle really making this argument? Yup:

I believe that God gave people different interests and is pleased when they study hard and develop expertise on some aspect of His creation. It is commendable to esteem the opinion of experts, provided that we are discerning and never regard fallible human opinions above (or equal to) the authoritative Word of God.

*I will also throw in a few ad hominems just for fun. In case you’re reading this Dr. Lisle, the ad hominems make for more entertaining reading. Screaming that they are not a logical argument is pointless. This is like me saying, “There is a cat.” And you saying, “A cat is not a verb!” It will not make you look more intelligent or learned.