Argument from authority: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 14:01, 22 October 2024

An argument from authority^[a] is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.^[1]

The argument from authority is a logical fallacy,^[2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.^[3]^[4]

However, in particular circumstances, it is sound to use as a practical although fallible way of obtaining information that can be considered generally likely to be correct if the authority is a real and pertinent intellectual authority and there is universal consensus about these statements in this field.^[1]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] This is specially the case when the revision of all the information and data "from scratch" would impede advances in an investigation or education. Further ways of validating a source include: evaluating the veracity of previous works by the author, their competence on the topic, their coherence, their conflicts of interest, etc.

Validity of the argument in deductive and inductive methods

In the deductive method

This argument has been considered a logical fallacy since its introduction by John Locke and Richard Whately.^[9] In particular, this is a form of genetic fallacy; in which the conclusion about the validity of a statement is justified by appealing to the characteristics of the person who is speaking, such as in the ad hominem fallacy.^[10] For this argument, Locke coined the term argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to shamefacedness/modesty) because it appeals to the fear of humiliation by appearing disrespectful to a particular authority.^[11]

This qualification as a logical fallacy implies that this argument is invalid when using the deductive method, and therefore it cannot be presented as infallible.^[12] In other words, it is logically invalid to prove a claim is true simply because an authority has said it. The explanation is: authorities can be wrong, and the only way of logically proving a claim is providing real evidence or a valid logical deduction of the claim from the evidence.^[13]^[14]^[15]

Related logical fallacies

It is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.^[10] Other related fallacious arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor.^[16] When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is an "appeal to the common man".^[17]

In the inductive method

However, when used in the inductive method, which implies the conclusions can not be proven with certainty,^[12] this argument can be considered a strong inductive argument and therefore not fallacious. If a person has a credible authority i.e. is an expert in the field in question, it is more likely that their assessments would be correct, especially if there is consensus about the topic between the credible sources.

The general form of this type of argument is:

Person A claims that X is true.
Person A is an expert in the field concerning X.
Therefore, X should be believed.^[18]

Nonetheless, it would also be a fallacy, even in the inductive method, when the source of the claim is a false authority, such as when the supposed authority is not a real expert, or when supporting a claim outside of their area of expertise. This is referred to as an "argument from false authority".^[19] It can also be considered a fallacy when the authority is an expert in the topic but their claims are controversial or not unanimous between other experts in the field. Some consider that it can be used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the cited authority in the given context.^[20] This form of argument can be considered sound if both parties to the debate agree that the authority is in fact an expert;^[20]^[21]^[22]

Furthermore, some claim that the act of trusting authorities is unavoidable for science to progress, since it would be a lot harder if not impossible for students and researchers to always resort to the factual evidence and demonstrations for all the knowledge they need to obtain to be able to come across new scientific findings.^[23]

At the same time, others claim that authority "has no place in science",^[24] meaning that the validity of claims always has to lay, ultimately, on the evidence and proofs provided, and not in the prestige of the authors.^{[citation needed]}

Confusion about its classification as a logical fallacy but a sound inductive criterion

The qualification of this type of argument as logical fallacy implies that it is not a valid way to deduce a conclusion, that is, to prove it.^[12] This does not mean that a claim from a credible respected authority does not generally have a bigger probability of being correct than that of somebody who has no expertise at all; but the strength of this argument is not absolute as is believed by some.

Use in science

Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority^[13]^[14]^[15] as authority has no place in science.^[14]^[25]^[26] Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.' ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."^[24] Conversely, it has been argued that science is fundamentally dependent on arguments from authority to progress as "they allow science to avoid forever revisiting the same ground".^[23]

One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,^[27] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,^[28]^[29] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,^[30] scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,^[31]^[32]^[29] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.^[28]^[33] Even textbooks^[28] with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24^[33] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.^[34]

This seemingly established number generated confirmation bias among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so".^[34] Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence",^[33] and scientists who obtained the accurate number modified^[35] or discarded^[36] their data to agree with Painter's count.

Roots in cognitive bias

Arguments from authority that are based on the idea that a person should conform to the opinion of a perceived authority or authoritative group are rooted in psychological cognitive biases^[37] such as the Asch effect.^[38]^[39]^[40] In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.^[41]

Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers found that "Participants reported considerable distress under the group pressure", with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.^[42]

Another study shining light on the psychological basis of the fallacy as it relates to perceived authorities are the Milgram experiments, which demonstrated that people are more likely to go along with something when it is presented by an authority.^[43] In a variation of a study where the researchers did not wear lab coats, thus reducing the perceived authority of the tasker, the obedience level dropped to 20% from the original rate, which had been higher than 50%. Obedience is encouraged by reminding the individual of what a perceived authority states and by showing them that their opinion goes against this authority.^[43]

Scholars have noted that certain environments can produce an ideal situation for these processes to take hold, giving rise to groupthink.^[44] In groupthink, individuals in a group feel inclined to minimize conflict and encourage conformity. Through an appeal to authority, a group member might present that opinion as a consensus and encourage the other group members to engage in groupthink by not disagreeing with this perceived consensus or authority.^[45]^[46] One paper about the philosophy of mathematics states that, within academia,

If...a person accepts our discipline, and goes through two or three years of graduate study in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking, and is no longer the critical outsider he once was...If the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit.^[47]

Corporate environments are similarly vulnerable to appeals to perceived authorities and experts leading to groupthink,^[48] as are governments and militaries.^[49]

Notes

^ Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate. Also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam.

References

^ ^a ^b "Fallacies". University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
^ Sadler, Troy (2006). "Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education". Journal of Science Teacher Education. 17 (4): 330. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4. S2CID 144949172.
^ Cummings, Louise (2015). "Argument from Authority". Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty. Springer. pp. 67–92. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_4. ISBN 9783319150130. The argument from authority has had many detractors throughout the long history of logic. It is not difficult to see why this is the case. After all, the argument resorts to the use of opinion to support a claim rather than a range of more objective sources of support (e.g. evidence from experiments)...These difficulties and other weaknesses of authority arguments have found these arguments maligned in the logical treatises of several historical thinkers...'argument from authority has been mentioned in lists of valid argument-forms as often as in lists of Fallacies'
^ Underwood, R.H. (1994). "Logic and the Common law Trial". American Journal of Trial Advocacy: 166.
^ Lewiński, Marcin (2008). "Comments on 'Black box arguments'". Argumentation. 22 (3): 447–451. doi:10.1007/s10503-008-9095-x.
^ Eemeren, Frans (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. John Benjamins. p. 203. ISBN 978-9027211194.
^ Bedau, Mark (2009). The ethics of protocells. Boston, Massachusetts; London, England: Mit Press. pp. 341. ISBN 978-0-262-01262-1.
^ Goodwin, Jean; McKerrow, Raymie (2011). "Accounting for the force of the appeal to authority". OSSA Conference Archive.
^ Hansen, Vilhem (1998). "Locke and Whately on the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam". Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 31, No. 1. Vol. 31. Penn State University Press. p. 60. JSTOR 40237981. (...) Locke thought no better or worse of the ad ignorantiam than he did of ad verecundiam or ad hominem (…) At the end of his discussion of the ad hominem as a fallacy, Whately says, "The same observations will apply to 'argumentum ad verecundiam' and the rest" (1853, 3.1). (…) If we use this analysis of the ad hominem as a model for how Whately thought of the other ad arguments, then the ad verecundiam will be an argument with premises that say that amazing authority . . . [or] some venerable institution" and a conclusion claiming that the one to whom the ad verecundiam is addressed ought to accept the conclusion in question on pain of being at odds with those commitments. Similarly, an ad populum argument will be one that includes among its premises the claim that such and such is a widely held opinion or commitment "of the multitude" and the conclusion will be that the person to whom the argument is directed is bound to accept a logical consequence of the commitments invoked. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
^ ^a ^b Williamson, Owen. "Master List of Logical Fallacies". The University of Texas at El Paso.
^ Goodwin, Jean (May 1998). "Forms of Authority and the Real Ad Verecundiam". Argumentation. 12 (2): 267–280. doi:10.1023/A:1007756117287 – via Springer Science+Business Media.
^ ^a ^b ^c Garrett, Aaron (2014). The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy. Routledge. p. 280. ISBN 9781317807926. demonstrations proceed deductively while probable reasoning involves inductive inferences.
^ ^a ^b McBride, Michael. "Retrospective Scientific Evaluation". Yale University. Archived from the original on 2010-07-24. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
^ ^a ^b ^c Zinser, Otto (1984). Basic Principles of Experimental Psychology. McGraw-Hill. p. 37. ISBN 9780070728455.
^ ^a ^b Stephen, Leslie (1882). The Science of Ethics. G. P. Putnam's sons. p. viii.
^ Ruggiero, Tim. "Logical Fallacies".
^ Bennett, Bo. "Appeal to the Common Man". Logically Fallacious.
^ Curtis, Gary N. "Misleading Appeal to Authority". The Fallacy Files. Retrieved 2021-07-08.
^ "Argument from False Authority". Logically Fallcious.
^ ^a ^b "Fallacies". University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
^ Lewiński, Marcin (2008). "Comments on 'Black box arguments'". Argumentation. 22 (3): 447–451. doi:10.1007/s10503-008-9095-x.
^ Eemeren, Frans (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. John Benjamins. p. 203. ISBN 978-9027211194.
^ ^a ^b Sismondo, Sergio (1999). "Scepticism and Authority in Popular Science (review)", Queen's Quarterly, Kingston, Vol. 106, Iss. 1, (Spring 1999). p106.
^ ^a ^b Sagan, Carl (July 6, 2011). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Ballantine Books. ISBN 9780307801043.
^ Stevenson, I. (1990). Some of My Journeys in Medicine (PDF). The University of Southwestern Louisiana. p. 18.
^ Quick, James Campbell; Little, Laura M.; Cooper, Cary L.; Gibbs, Philip C.; Nelson, Debra (2010). "Organizational Behavior". International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 278.
^ Painter, Theophilus S. (April 1923), "Studies in mammalian spermatogenesis. II. The spermatogenesis of man", Journal of Experimental Zoology, 37 (3): 291–336, doi:10.1002/jez.1400370303
^ ^a ^b ^c Glass, Bentley (1990). Theophilus Shickel Painter (PDF). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. pp. 316–17.
^ ^a ^b Mertens, Thomas (October 1979). "The Role of Factual Knowledge in Biology Teaching". The American Biology Teacher. 41 (7): 395–419. doi:10.2307/4446671. JSTOR 4446671.
^ Tjio, Joe Hin; Levan, Albert (May 1956), "The Chromosome Number of Man", Hereditas, 42 (1–2): 723–4, doi:10.1111/j.1601-5223.1956.tb03010.x, PMID 345813
^ O'Connor, Clare (2008), Human Chromosome Number, Nature, retrieved April 24, 2014
^ Gartler, Stanley (2006). "The Chromosome Number in Humans: A Brief History". Nature Reviews Genetics. 7 (8): 655–60. doi:10.1038/nrg1917. PMID 16847465. S2CID 21365693.
^ ^a ^b ^c Orrell, David PhD. (2008). The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction. pp. 184–85.
^ ^a ^b Kevles, Daniel J. (1985). "Human Chromosomes--Down's Disorder and the Binder's Mistakes" (PDF). Engineering and Science: 9.
^ T. C., Hsu (1979). "Out of the Dark Ages: Human and Mammalian Cytogenetics: An Historical Perspective" (PDF). Cell. 18 (4): 1375–1376. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(79)90249-6. S2CID 54330665.
^ Unger, Lawrence; Blystone, Robert (1996). "Paradigm Lost: The Human Chromosome Story" (PDF). Bioscene. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-09-05. Retrieved 2016-03-24.
^ Sammut, Gordon; Bauer, Martin W (2011). "Social Influence: Modes and Modalities". The Social Psychology of Communication (PDF). pp. 87–106. doi:10.1057/9780230297616_5. ISBN 978-0-230-24736-9.
^ Delameter, Andrew (2017). "Contrasting Scientific & Non-Scientific Approaches to Acquiring Knowledge". City University of New York.
^ Sheldon, Brian; Macdonald, Geraldine (2010). A Textbook of Social Work. Routledge. p. 40. ISBN 9781135282615.
^ Bates, Jordan (16 March 2016). "12 Psychological Tactics Donald Trump Uses to Manipulate the Masses". 11. Appeals to Authority.
^ McLeod, Samuel (2008), Asch Experiment, Simply Psychology
^ Webley, Paul, A partial and non-evaluative history of the Asch effect, University of Exeter
^ ^a ^b Milgram, S (1965). "Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority". Human Relations. 18 (1): 57–76. doi:10.1177/001872676501800105. S2CID 37505499.
^ "December 2014 – Page 2". Disrupted Physician. 22 December 2014.
^ Definition of GROUPTHINK. (2017). Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groupthink
^ Rossi, Stacey (2006). "Examination of Exclusion Rates in Massachusetts Public Schools" (PDF).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ David, Phillip J.; Hersh, Reuben (1998). New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics (PDF). Princeton University Press. p. 8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04.
^ Lookwin, B. (2015). "Biopharma Training". Archived from the original on 2017-09-12. Retrieved 2017-09-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Janis, Irving L. (1971). "Groupthink" (PDF). Psychology Today.

[1] Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate. Also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam.

[UNC2-2] "Fallacies". University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

[Sadler-3] Sadler, Troy (2006). "Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education". Journal of Science Teacher Education. 17 (4): 330. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4. S2CID 144949172.

[Reasoning_and_Public_Health-4] Cummings, Louise (2015). "Argument from Authority". Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty. Springer. pp. 67–92. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_4. ISBN 9783319150130. The argument from authority has had many detractors throughout the long history of logic. It is not difficult to see why this is the case. After all, the argument resorts to the use of opinion to support a claim rather than a range of more objective sources of support (e.g. evidence from experiments)...These difficulties and other weaknesses of authority arguments have found these arguments maligned in the logical treatises of several historical thinkers...'argument from authority has been mentioned in lists of valid argument-forms as often as in lists of Fallacies'

[Logic_and_the_Common_law_Trial-5] Underwood, R.H. (1994). "Logic and the Common law Trial". American Journal of Trial Advocacy: 166.

[Alpha2-6] Lewiński, Marcin (2008). "Comments on 'Black box arguments'". Argumentation. 22 (3): 447–451. doi:10.1007/s10503-008-9095-x.

[Beta2-7] Eemeren, Frans (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. John Benjamins. p. 203. ISBN 978-9027211194.

[:1-8] Bedau, Mark (2009). The ethics of protocells. Boston, Massachusetts; London, England: Mit Press. pp. 341. ISBN 978-0-262-01262-1.

[9] Goodwin, Jean; McKerrow, Raymie (2011). "Accounting for the force of the appeal to authority". OSSA Conference Archive.

[Philosophy_&_Rhetoric_Vol._31_No._1-10] Hansen, Vilhem (1998). "Locke and Whately on the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam". Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 31, No. 1. Vol. 31. Penn State University Press. p. 60. JSTOR 40237981. (...) Locke thought no better or worse of the ad ignorantiam than he did of ad verecundiam or ad hominem (…) At the end of his discussion of the ad hominem as a fallacy, Whately says, "The same observations will apply to 'argumentum ad verecundiam' and the rest" (1853, 3.1). (…) If we use this analysis of the ad hominem as a model for how Whately thought of the other ad arguments, then the ad verecundiam will be an argument with premises that say that amazing authority . . . [or] some venerable institution" and a conclusion claiming that the one to whom the ad verecundiam is addressed ought to accept the conclusion in question on pain of being at odds with those commitments. Similarly, an ad populum argument will be one that includes among its premises the claim that such and such is a widely held opinion or commitment "of the multitude" and the conclusion will be that the person to whom the argument is directed is bound to accept a logical consequence of the commitments invoked. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)

[Williamson-11] Williamson, Owen. "Master List of Logical Fallacies". The University of Texas at El Paso.

[12] Goodwin, Jean (May 1998). "Forms of Authority and the Real Ad Verecundiam". Argumentation. 12 (2): 267–280. doi:10.1023/A:1007756117287 – via Springer Science+Business Media.

[The_Routledge_Companion_to_Eighteenth_Century_Philosophy-13] Garrett, Aaron (2014). The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy. Routledge. p. 280. ISBN 9781317807926. demonstrations proceed deductively while probable reasoning involves inductive inferences.

[occultatoms-14] McBride, Michael. "Retrospective Scientific Evaluation". Yale University. Archived from the original on 2010-07-24. Retrieved 2017-08-10.

[Principles_of_Psychology-15] Zinser, Otto (1984). Basic Principles of Experimental Psychology. McGraw-Hill. p. 37. ISBN 9780070728455.

[The_Science_of_Ethics-16] Stephen, Leslie (1882). The Science of Ethics. G. P. Putnam's sons. p. viii.

[17] Ruggiero, Tim. "Logical Fallacies".

[Common_man_ref-18] Bennett, Bo. "Appeal to the Common Man". Logically Fallacious.

[ff.org-19] Curtis, Gary N. "Misleading Appeal to Authority". The Fallacy Files. Retrieved 2021-07-08.

[20] "Argument from False Authority". Logically Fallcious.

[UNC-21] "Fallacies". University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

[Alpha-22] Lewiński, Marcin (2008). "Comments on 'Black box arguments'". Argumentation. 22 (3): 447–451. doi:10.1007/s10503-008-9095-x.

[Beta-23] Eemeren, Frans (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. John Benjamins. p. 203. ISBN 978-9027211194.

[Sismondo,_Sergio_1999_p106-24] Sismondo, Sergio (1999). "Scepticism and Authority in Popular Science (review)", Queen's Quarterly, Kingston, Vol. 106, Iss. 1, (Spring 1999). p106.

[Ballantine_Books-25] Sagan, Carl (July 6, 2011). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Ballantine Books. ISBN 9780307801043.

[26] Stevenson, I. (1990). Some of My Journeys in Medicine (PDF). The University of Southwestern Louisiana. p. 18.

[27] Quick, James Campbell; Little, Laura M.; Cooper, Cary L.; Gibbs, Philip C.; Nelson, Debra (2010). "Organizational Behavior". International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 278.

[28] Painter, Theophilus S. (April 1923), "Studies in mammalian spermatogenesis. II. The spermatogenesis of man", Journal of Experimental Zoology, 37 (3): 291–336, doi:10.1002/jez.1400370303

[Painter_Account-29] Glass, Bentley (1990). Theophilus Shickel Painter (PDF). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. pp. 316–17.

[48_taught-30] Mertens, Thomas (October 1979). "The Role of Factual Knowledge in Biology Teaching". The American Biology Teacher. 41 (7): 395–419. doi:10.2307/4446671. JSTOR 4446671.

[31] Tjio, Joe Hin; Levan, Albert (May 1956), "The Chromosome Number of Man", Hereditas, 42 (1–2): 723–4, doi:10.1111/j.1601-5223.1956.tb03010.x, PMID 345813

[32] O'Connor, Clare (2008), Human Chromosome Number, Nature, retrieved April 24, 2014

[33] Gartler, Stanley (2006). "The Chromosome Number in Humans: A Brief History". Nature Reviews Genetics. 7 (8): 655–60. doi:10.1038/nrg1917. PMID 16847465. S2CID 21365693.

[Orrell_2008-34] Orrell, David PhD. (2008). The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction. pp. 184–85.

[Down_Binder-35] Kevles, Daniel J. (1985). "Human Chromosomes--Down's Disorder and the Binder's Mistakes" (PDF). Engineering and Science: 9.

[Hsudo-36] T. C., Hsu (1979). "Out of the Dark Ages: Human and Mammalian Cytogenetics: An Historical Perspective" (PDF). Cell. 18 (4): 1375–1376. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(79)90249-6. S2CID 54330665.

[Liver-37] Unger, Lawrence; Blystone, Robert (1996). "Paradigm Lost: The Human Chromosome Story" (PDF). Bioscene. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-09-05. Retrieved 2016-03-24.

[38] Sammut, Gordon; Bauer, Martin W (2011). "Social Influence: Modes and Modalities". The Social Psychology of Communication (PDF). pp. 87–106. doi:10.1057/9780230297616_5. ISBN 978-0-230-24736-9.

[39] Delameter, Andrew (2017). "Contrasting Scientific & Non-Scientific Approaches to Acquiring Knowledge". City University of New York.

[40] Sheldon, Brian; Macdonald, Geraldine (2010). A Textbook of Social Work. Routledge. p. 40. ISBN 9781135282615.

[41] Bates, Jordan (16 March 2016). "12 Psychological Tactics Donald Trump Uses to Manipulate the Masses". 11. Appeals to Authority.

[42] McLeod, Samuel (2008), Asch Experiment, Simply Psychology

[43] Webley, Paul, A partial and non-evaluative history of the Asch effect, University of Exeter

[ReferenceA-44] Milgram, S (1965). "Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority". Human Relations. 18 (1): 57–76. doi:10.1177/001872676501800105. S2CID 37505499.

[45] "December 2014 – Page 2". Disrupted Physician. 22 December 2014.

[46] Definition of GROUPTHINK. (2017). Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groupthink

[47] Rossi, Stacey (2006). "Examination of Exclusion Rates in Massachusetts Public Schools" (PDF).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[The_Ideal_Mathematician-48] David, Phillip J.; Hersh, Reuben (1998). New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics (PDF). Princeton University Press. p. 8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04.

[49] Lookwin, B. (2015). "Biopharma Training". Archived from the original on 2017-09-12. Retrieved 2017-09-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[50] Janis, Irving L. (1971). "Groupthink" (PDF). Psychology Today.

[a]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Short description|Form of argument}}
+{{Short description|A fallacious argument that rationalizes the conclusion via an appeal to authority}}
+{{Wikiquote}}An '''argument from authority'''{{efn|[[Latin]]: {{Lang|la|argumentum ab auctoritate}}. Also called an '''appeal to authority''', or {{Lang|la|'''argumentum ad verecundiam'''}}.}} is a form of [[argument]] in which the opinion of an [[Authority|authority figure]] (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.<ref name="UNC2">{{cite web |title=Fallacies |url=https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/ |publisher=University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill}}</ref>
-{{wikiquote}}
-An '''argument from authority''' (''argumentum ab auctoritate''), also called an '''appeal to authority''', or '''''argumentum ad verecundiam''''', is a form of [[argument]] in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument.<ref name="UNC">{{cite web |title=Fallacies |url=https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/ |publisher=University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill}}</ref> Some consider it to be a practical and sound way of obtaining knowledge that is generally likely to be correct when the authority is real, pertinent, and universally accepted.<ref name="UNC"/> And others consider it to be a [[fallacy]] to cite the views of an authority on the discussed topic as a means of supporting an argument.<ref name="Sadler">{{cite journal|last1=Sadler|first1=Troy|title=Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education|journal=Journal of Science Teacher Education|date=2006|doi=10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4|volume=17|issue=4|page=330|bibcode=2006JSTEd..17..323S |s2cid=144949172}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=William |title=Austrian Economics and the "Market Test": A Comment on Laband and Tolliso |journal=Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics |date=2000 |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=63–73 |doi=10.1007/s12113-000-1021-5 |citeseerx=10.1.1.192.6282 |s2cid=14389918 }}</ref>
- <ref name="Alpha">{{cite journal|last1=Lewiński|first1=Marcin|title=Comments on 'Black box arguments'|journal=Argumentation|date=2008|doi=10.1007/s10503-008-9095-x|volume=22|issue=3|pages=447–451|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Beta">{{cite book|last1=Eemeren|first1=Frans|title=Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation|date=2010|page=203|publisher=John Benjamins |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Nwf5AOEBWJwC|isbn=978-9027211194}}</ref> while all agree that appeals to authority are not a valid form of logical proof.<ref name="UNC" />
-Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources,<ref name="Reasoning and Public Health">{{cite book |last1=Cummings |first1=Louise |title=Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty |chapter=Argument from Authority |year=2015 |pages=67–92 |publisher=Springer |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_4 |isbn=9783319150130 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_4 |quote=The argument from authority has had many detractors throughout the long history of logic. It is not difficult to see why this is the case. After all, the argument resorts to the use of opinion to support a claim rather than a range of more objective sources of support (e.g. evidence from experiments)...These difficulties and other weaknesses of authority arguments have found these arguments maligned in the logical treatises of several historical thinkers...'argument from authority has been mentioned in lists of valid argument-forms as often as in lists of Fallacies'}}</ref><ref name="Logic and the Common law Trial">{{cite journal|last1=Underwood|first1=R.H.|title=Logic and the Common law Trial|journal=[[American Journal of Trial Advocacy]]|date=1994|page=166|url=http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1258&context=law_facpub}}</ref> as some hold that it can be a strong or at least valid [[Defeasible reasoning|defeasible]]<ref>{{Cite book |last=Walton |first=Douglas N. |author-link=Douglas N. Walton |date=2008 |chapter=Appeals to authority |title=Informal logic: a pragmatic approach |edition=2nd |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |pages=[https://archive.org/details/informallogicpra0000walt/page/209 209]–245 |isbn=9780521713801 |oclc=783439050 |doi=10.1017/CBO9780511808630.009 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/informallogicpra0000walt/page/209 |chapter-url-access=registration}}</ref> argument<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/critical-thinking/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.php |title=Appeal to Authority |publisher=Association for Critical Thinking |access-date=2017-08-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171101193626/http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/critical-thinking/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.php |archive-date=2017-11-01 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="Merrilee">{{cite book |last=Salmon |first=Merrilee H. |title=Introduction to logic and critical thinking |date=2013 |edition=6th |location=Boston |publisher=Wadsworth |pages=118–121 |isbn=9781133049753 |oclc=805951311}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=The ethics of protocells|url=https://archive.org/details/ethicsprotocells00beda|url-access=limited|last=Bedau|first=Mark|publisher=Mit Press|year=2009|isbn=978-0-262-01262-1|location=Boston, Massachusetts; London, England|pages=[https://archive.org/details/ethicsprotocells00beda/page/n353 341]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Goodwin|first1=Jean|last2=McKerrow|first2=Raymie|title=Accounting for the force of the appeal to authority|journal=OSSA Conference Archive|date=2011|url=http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ossaarchive}}</ref> and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy.<ref name="Sadler"/><ref name = "skepdic_old">{{cite web|last1=Carroll|first1=Robert|title=Appeal to Authority|url=http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html|website=The Skeptic's Dictionary|ref=skepdic}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Woodward|first1=Ian|title=Ignorance is Contagious|url=http://www.geol.utas.edu.au/geography/EIANZ/Ignorance_is_contagious_%28July_2008%29.pdf|publisher=University of Tasmania|access-date=2017-08-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160404011911/http://www.geol.utas.edu.au/geography/EIANZ/Ignorance_is_contagious_(July_2008).pdf|archive-date=2016-04-04|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Knight|first1=Sue|last2=Collins|first2=Carol|title=The Cultivation of Reason Giving|journal=International Journal of the Humanities|date=October 2005|volume=3|issue=2|page=187|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325188730}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=The Rival Theories of Cholera|journal=Medical Press and Circular|date=1885|volume=90|page=28|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wBgCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA28}}</ref>
+The argument from authority is a [[logical fallacy]],<ref name="Sadler">{{cite journal |last1=Sadler |first1=Troy |date=2006 |title=Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education |journal=Journal of Science Teacher Education |volume=17 |issue=4 |page=330 |doi=10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4 |s2cid=144949172}}</ref> and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.<ref name="Reasoning and Public Health">{{cite book |last1=Cummings |first1=Louise |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_4 |title=Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty |publisher=Springer |year=2015 |isbn=9783319150130 |pages=67–92 |chapter=Argument from Authority |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_4 |quote=The argument from authority has had many detractors throughout the long history of logic. It is not difficult to see why this is the case. After all, the argument resorts to the use of opinion to support a claim rather than a range of more objective sources of support (e.g. evidence from experiments)...These difficulties and other weaknesses of authority arguments have found these arguments maligned in the logical treatises of several historical thinkers...'argument from authority has been mentioned in lists of valid argument-forms as often as in lists of Fallacies'}}</ref><ref name="Logic and the Common law Trial">{{cite journal |last1=Underwood |first1=R.H. |date=1994 |title=Logic and the Common law Trial |url=http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1258&context=law_facpub |journal=[[American Journal of Trial Advocacy]] |page=166}}</ref>
+However, in particular circumstances, it is sound to use as a practical although fallible way of obtaining information that can be considered ''generally likely'' to be correct if the ''authority'' is a real and pertinent intellectual authority and there is universal consensus about these statements in this field.<ref name="UNC2" /><ref name="Alpha2">{{cite journal |last1=Lewiński |first1=Marcin |date=2008 |title=Comments on 'Black box arguments' |journal=Argumentation |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=447–451 |doi=10.1007/s10503-008-9095-x |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Beta2">{{cite book |last1=Eemeren |first1=Frans |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Nwf5AOEBWJwC |title=Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation |date=2010 |publisher=John Benjamins |isbn=978-9027211194 |page=203}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Bedau |first=Mark |url=https://archive.org/details/ethicsprotocells00beda |title=The ethics of protocells |publisher=Mit Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-262-01262-1 |location=Boston, Massachusetts; London, England |pages=[https://archive.org/details/ethicsprotocells00beda/page/n353 341] |url-access=limited}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goodwin |first1=Jean |last2=McKerrow |first2=Raymie |date=2011 |title=Accounting for the force of the appeal to authority |url=http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ossaarchive |journal=OSSA Conference Archive}}</ref> This is specially the case when the revision of all the information and data "from scratch" would impede advances in an investigation or education. Further ways of validating a [[Source text|source]] include: evaluating the veracity of previous works by the author, their competence on the topic, their coherence, their conflicts of interest, etc.
-The general form of this type of argument is:
+==Validity of the argument in deductive and inductive methods==
-{{quote|<poem>
-Person or persons {{var|A}} claim that {{var|X}} is true.
-Person or persons {{var|A}} are experts in the field concerning {{var|X}}.
-Therefore, {{var|X}} should be believed.<ref name="ff.org">{{cite web|url=https://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html|title=Misleading Appeal to Authority|last=Curtis|first=Gary N.|website=The Fallacy Files|access-date=2021-07-08}}</ref>
-</poem>|author=|title=|source=}}
-==Use in science==
+===In the deductive method===
+This argument has been considered a logical fallacy since its introduction by [[John Locke]] and [[Richard Whately]].<ref name="Philosophy & Rhetoric Vol. 31 No. 1">{{cite book|last1=Hansen |first1=Vilhem |title= Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 31, No. 1 |chapter= Locke and Whately on the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam |journal=Philosophy & Rhetoric |year=1998 |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=60 |publisher= Penn State University Press |jstor=40237981 |chapter-url= http://www.jstor.org/stable/40237981 |quote=(...) Locke thought no better or worse of the ad ignorantiam than he did of ad verecundiam or ad hominem (…) At the end of his discussion of the ad hominem as a fallacy, Whately says, "The same observations will apply to 'argumentum ad verecundiam' and the rest" (1853, 3.1). (…) If we use this analysis of the ad hominem as a model for how Whately thought of the other ad arguments, then the ad verecundiam will be an argument with premises that say that amazing authority . . . [or] some venerable institution" and a conclusion claiming that the one to whom the ad verecundiam is addressed ought to accept the conclusion in question on pain of being at odds with those commitments. Similarly, an ad populum argument will be one that includes among its premises the claim that such and such is a widely held opinion or commitment "of the multitude" and the conclusion will be that the person to whom the argument is directed is bound to accept a logical consequence of the commitments invoked.}}</ref> In particular, this is a form of [[genetic fallacy]]; in which the conclusion about the validity of a statement is justified by appealing to the characteristics of the person who is speaking, such as in the ''[[ad hominem]]'' fallacy.<ref name="Williamson">{{cite web |last=Williamson |first=Owen |title=Master List of Logical Fallacies |url=http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm|publisher=[[The University of Texas at El Paso]]}}</ref> For this argument, Locke coined the term ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' (appeal to shamefacedness/modesty) because it appeals to the fear of humiliation by appearing disrespectful to a particular authority.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Goodwin |first=Jean |date=May 1998 |title=Forms of Authority and the Real Ad Verecundiam |url=https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007756117287 |journal=Argumentation |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=267–280 |doi=10.1023/A:1007756117287 |via=[[Springer Science+Business Media]]}}</ref>
-Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority<ref name="occultatoms">{{cite web|last1= McBride|first1= Michael|title= Retrospective Scientific Evaluation|url= https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret|publisher= Yale University|access-date= 2017-08-10|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100724053801/https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret|archive-date= 2010-07-24|url-status= dead}}</ref><ref name="Principles_of_Psychology">{{cite book|last1= Zinser|first1= Otto|title= Basic Principles of Experimental Psychology|date= 1984|page= 37|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=XcBtP1TpAcUC&q=%22accept+claims+on+the+authority%22|isbn= 9780070728455}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1= Stephen|first1= Leslie|title= The Science of Ethics|publisher= G. P. Putnam's sons|page= viii|url= https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175355|year= 1882}}</ref> as [[Authority (sociology)|authority]] has no place in science.<ref name="Principles_of_Psychology" /><ref>{{cite book|last1= Stevenson|first1= I.|title= Some of My Journeys in Medicine|date= 1990|publisher= The University of Southwestern Louisiana|page= 18|url= https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2015/11/some-of-my-journeys-in-medicine.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1= Quick|first1= James Campbell|last2= Little|first2= Laura M.|last3= Cooper|first3= Cary L.|last4= Gibbs|first4= Philip C.|last5= Nelson|first5= Debra|journal= International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology|date= 2010|page= 278|title= Organizational Behavior|url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229724832}}</ref> [[Carl Sagan]] wrote of arguments from authority: <blockquote>One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.<ref>{{cite book|last1= Sagan|first1= Carl|title= The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Yz8Y6KfXf9UC&q=Arguments+from+authority |publisher= [[Ballantine Books]]
-|date= July 6, 2011 |isbn= 9780307801043}}</ref></blockquote>
+This qualification as a logical fallacy implies that this argument is invalid when using the deductive method, and therefore it cannot be presented as infallible.<ref name="The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy">{{cite book|last1=Garrett|first1=Aaron|title= The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy |year=2014 |pages=280 |publisher= Routledge |isbn=9781317807926 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=3fojAwAAQBAJ |quote= "demonstrations proceed deductively while probable reasoning involves inductive inferences."}}</ref> In other words, it is logically invalid to prove a claim is true simply because an authority has said it. The explanation is: authorities can be wrong, and the only way of logically proving a claim is providing real evidence or a valid logical deduction of the claim from the evidence.<ref name="occultatoms">{{cite web|last1= McBride|first1= Michael|title= Retrospective Scientific Evaluation|url= https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret|publisher= Yale University|access-date= 2017-08-10|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100724053801/https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret|archive-date= 2010-07-24|url-status= dead}}</ref><ref name="Principles_of_Psychology">{{cite book|last1= Zinser|first1= Otto|title= Basic Principles of Experimental Psychology|date= 1984|page= 37|publisher= McGraw-Hill|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=XcBtP1TpAcUC&q=%22accept+claims+on+the+authority%22|isbn= 9780070728455}}</ref><ref name="The Science of Ethics">{{cite book|last1= Stephen|first1= Leslie|title= The Science of Ethics|publisher= G. P. Putnam's sons|page= viii|url= https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175355|year= 1882}}</ref>
-One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,<ref>{{Citation|first= Theophilus S.|last= Painter|title= Studies in mammalian spermatogenesis. II. The spermatogenesis of man|journal= Journal of Experimental Zoology|volume= 37|issue= 3|date= April 1923|pages= 291–336|doi= 10.1002/jez.1400370303}}</ref> when leading American zoologist [[Theophilus Painter]] declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,<ref name ="Painter_Account" /><ref name="48_taught">{{cite journal|last1= Mertens|first1= Thomas|title= The Role of Factual Knowledge in Biology Teaching|journal= [[The American Biology Teacher]]|date= October 1979|volume= 41|issue= 7|doi= 10.2307/4446671|pages= 395–419|jstor= 4446671}}</ref> that humans had 24 pairs of [[chromosomes]]. From the 1920s until 1956,<ref>{{Citation|last1= Tjio|first1= Joe Hin|last2= Levan|first2= Albert|date= May 1956|title= The Chromosome Number of Man|journal= Hereditas|doi= 10.1111/j.1601-5223.1956.tb03010.x|volume= 42|issue= 1–2|pages= 723–4|pmid= 345813|doi-access= free}}</ref> scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,<ref>{{Citation | last= O'Connor |first= Clare |year= 2008 |title= Human Chromosome Number |publisher= Nature |url= http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Human-Chromosome-Number-294 |access-date= April 24, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1= Gartler|first1= Stanley|title= The Chromosome Number in Humans: A Brief History|journal= [[Nature Reviews Genetics]]|date= 2006|volume= 7|issue= 8|pages= 655–60|url= http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/The-chromosome-number-in-humans-a-brief-15575|doi= 10.1038/nrg1917|pmid= 16847465|s2cid= 21365693}}</ref><ref name ="48_taught" /> despite subsequent counts totaling the [[Chromosome#Human chromosomes|correct number]] of 23.<ref name="Painter_Account">{{cite book|last1= Glass|first1= Bentley|title= Theophilus Shickel Painter|date= 1990|publisher= [[National Academy of Sciences]]|location= Washington, DC|pages= 316–17|url= http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/painter-theophilus-shickel.pdf}}</ref><ref name="Orrell_2008">{{cite book|last1= Orrell|first1= David PhD.|title= The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction|date= 2008|pages= [https://archive.org/details/futureofeverythi0000orre/page/184 184]–85|title-link= Apollo's Arrow}}</ref> Even textbooks<ref name="Painter_Account" /> with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24<ref name="Orrell_2008"/> based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.<ref name="Down_Binder">{{cite journal|last1= Kevles|first1= Daniel J.|title= Human Chromosomes--Down's Disorder and the Binder's Mistakes|journal= Engineering and Science|date= 1985|page= 9|url= http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/594/2/Kevles.pdf}}</ref>
+====Related logical fallacies====
-This seemingly established number generated [[confirmation bias]] among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so".<ref name ="Down_Binder"/> Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence",<ref name="Orrell_2008"/> and scientists who obtained the accurate number modified<ref name="Hsudo">{{cite journal|last1= T. C.|first1= Hsu|title= Out of the Dark Ages: Human and Mammalian Cytogenetics: An Historical Perspective|journal= Cell|date= 1979|url= http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/0092-8674%2879%2990249-6.pdf|doi= 10.1016/0092-8674(79)90249-6|volume= 18|issue= 4|pages= 1375–1376|s2cid= 54330665}}</ref> or discarded<ref name="Liver">{{cite journal|last1= Unger|first1= Lawrence|last2= Blystone|first2= Robert|title= Paradigm Lost: The Human Chromosome Story|journal= [[Bioscene]]|date= 1996|url= http://amcbt.indstate.edu/volume_22/v22-2p3-9.pdf|access-date= 2016-03-24|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060905015828/http://amcbt.indstate.edu/volume_22/v22-2p3-9.pdf|archive-date= 2006-09-05|url-status= dead}}</ref> their data to agree with Painter's count.
+It is also a fallacious ''[[ad hominem]]'' argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.<ref name="Williamson"/> Other related fallacious arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. For instance, the [[appeal to poverty]] is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ruggiero |first1=Tim |title=Logical Fallacies |url=http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#argumentum%20ad%20lazarum%20--%20The%20fallacy%20of%20supposing%20a%20conclusion%20is%20valid%20because%20the%20argument%20is%20made%20by%20a%20poor%20person.%20It%20is%20the%20opposite%20of%20the%20ad%20crumenam%20fallacy.}}</ref> When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is an "appeal to the common man".<ref name="Common_man_ref">{{cite web|last1=Bennett|first1=Bo|title=Appeal to the Common Man|url=http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/24-appeal-to-common-folk|website=Logically Fallacious}}</ref>
-==Use in logic==
-===In the deductive method===
+===In the inductive method===
+{{Further|Inductivism}}
-This argument has been considered a logical fallacy since its introduction by [[John Locke]] and [[Richard Whately]].<ref name="Philosophy & Rhetoric Vol. 31 No. 1">{{cite book|last1=Hansen |first1=Vilhem |title= Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 31, No. 1 |chapter= Locke and Whately on the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam |journal=Philosophy & Rhetoric |year=1998 |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=60 |publisher= Penn State University Press |jstor=40237981 |chapter-url= http://www.jstor.org/stable/40237981 |quote=(...) Locke thought no better or worse of the ad ignorantiam than he did of ad verecundiam or ad hominem (…) At the end of his discussion of the ad hominem as a fallacy, Whately says, "The same observations will apply to 'argumentum ad verecundiam' and the rest" (1853, 3.1). (…) If we use this analysis of the ad hominem as a model for how Whately thought of the other ad arguments, then the ad verecundiam will be an argument with premises that say that amazing authority . . . [or] some venerable institution" and a conclusion claiming that the one to whom the ad verecundiam is addressed ought to accept the conclusion in question on pain of being at odds with those commitments. Similarly, an ad populum argument will be one that includes among its premises the claim that such and such is a widely held opinion or commitment "of the multitude" and the conclusion will be that the person to whom the argument is directed is bound to accept a logical consequence of the commitments invoked.}}</ref> In particular, this is a form of [[genetic fallacy]]; in which the conclusion about the validity of a statement is justified by appealing to the characteristics of the person who is speaking, such as in the [[ad hominem]] fallacy.<ref name="Williamson">{{cite web |last=Williamson |first=Owen |title=Master List of Logical Fallacies |url=http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm|publisher=[[The University of Texas at El Paso]]}}</ref> For this argument, Locke coined the term ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' (appeal to shamefacedness/modesty) because it appeals to the fear of humiliation by appearing disrespectful to a particular authority.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Goodwin |first=Jean |date=May 1998 |title=Forms of Authority and the Real Ad Verecundiam |url=https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007756117287 |journal=Argumentation |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=267–280 |via=[[Springer Science+Business Media]]}}</ref>
+However, when used in the inductive method, which implies the conclusions can not be proven with certainty,<ref name="The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy"/> this argument can be considered a strong [[inductive argument]] and therefore not fallacious. If a person has a credible authority i.e. is an expert in the field in question, it is more likely that their assessments would be correct, especially if there is consensus about the topic between the credible sources.
-This qualification as a logical fallacy implies that this argument is invalid when using the deductive method, and therefore it can't be presented as infallible.<ref name="The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy">{{cite book|last1=Garrett|first1=Aaron|title= The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy |year=2014 |pages=280 |publisher= Routledge |isbn=9781317807926 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=3fojAwAAQBAJ |quote= "demonstrations proceed deductively while probable reasoning involves inductive inferences."}}</ref> In other words, it's logically invalid to prove a claim is true because an authority has said it. The explanation is simple: authorities can be wrong, and the only way of logically proving a claim is providing real evidence and/or a valid logical deduction of the claim from the evidence.<ref name="occultatoms">{{cite web|last1= McBride|first1= Michael|title= Retrospective Scientific Evaluation|url= https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret|publisher= Yale University|access-date= 2017-08-10|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100724053801/https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret|archive-date= 2010-07-24|url-status= dead}}</ref><ref name="Principles_of_Psychology"></ref>
+The general form of this type of argument is:
-The appeal to authority carries rhetorical force as an example of [[Ethos#Rhetoric|Ethos]] in rhetoric.
+{{quote|<poem>
-===In the inductive method===
+Person {{var|A}} claims that {{var|X}} is true.
+Person {{var|A}} is an expert in the field concerning {{var|X}}.
-{{Further|Inductivism}}
+Therefore, {{var|X}} should be believed.<ref name="ff.org">{{cite web|url=https://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html|title=Misleading Appeal to Authority|last=Curtis|first=Gary N.|website=The Fallacy Files|access-date=2021-07-08}}</ref>
+</poem>|author=|title=|source=}}
-However, when used in the inductive method, which implies the conclusions can never be proven or certain,<ref name="The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy"/> this argument can be considered sound and not fallacious. If a person has a credible authority, some say [[Ipse dixit| it is more likely that their assessments would be correct]] but derided by detractors as [[name-dropping]] that evinces [[authority bias]] and [[credentialism]]. Others point to what they consider to be counterexamples to this, seen with [[Nobel disease]]. Still others say further that it is more likely to be correct if there is consensus about the topic between the credible sources, yet others point to counterexamples such as the [[Manifesto of the Ninety-Three]], showing that this approach can lead one to affirm actions generally considered immoral, similar to the [[Milgram experiment]].
 Nonetheless, it would also be a fallacy, even in the inductive method, when the source of the claim is a false authority, such as when the supposed authority is not a real expert, or when supporting a claim outside of their area of expertise. This is referred to as an "argument from false authority".<ref>{{cite web|title=Argument from False Authority|url= https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-False-Authority|website=Logically Fallcious}}</ref>
-It can also be considered a fallacy when the authority is an expert in the topic but their claims are controversial or not unanimous between other experts in the field. Some consider that it can be used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the cited authority in the given context.<ref name="UNC"/> This form of argument can be considered sound if both parties to the debate agree that the authority is in fact an expert;<ref name="UNC"/><ref name="Alpha"/><ref name="Beta"/>
+It can also be considered a fallacy when the authority is an expert in the topic but their claims are controversial or not unanimous between other experts in the field. Some consider that it can be used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the cited authority in the given context.<ref name="UNC">{{cite web |title=Fallacies |url=https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/ |publisher=University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill}}</ref> This form of argument can be considered sound if both parties to the debate agree that the authority is in fact an expert;<ref name="UNC"/><ref name="Alpha">{{cite journal |last1=Lewiński |first1=Marcin |date=2008 |title=Comments on 'Black box arguments' |journal=Argumentation |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=447–451 |doi=10.1007/s10503-008-9095-x |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Beta">{{cite book |last1=Eemeren |first1=Frans |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Nwf5AOEBWJwC |title=Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation |date=2010 |publisher=John Benjamins |isbn=978-9027211194 |page=203}}</ref>
 Furthermore, some claim that the act of trusting authorities is unavoidable for science to progress, since it would be a lot harder if not impossible for students and researchers to always resort to the factual evidence and demonstrations for all the knowledge they need to obtain to be able to come across new scientific findings.<ref name="Sismondo, Sergio 1999 p106">Sismondo, Sergio (1999). "Scepticism and Authority in Popular Science (review)", ''[[Queen's Quarterly]]'', Kingston, Vol. 106, Iss. 1, (Spring 1999). p106.</ref>
+At the same time, others claim that authority "has no place in science",<ref name="Ballantine Books">{{cite book|last1= Sagan|first1= Carl|title= The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Yz8Y6KfXf9UC&q=Arguments+from+authority |publisher= [[Ballantine Books]] |date= July 6, 2011 |isbn= 9780307801043}}</ref> meaning that the validity of claims always has to lay, ultimately, on the evidence and proofs provided, and not in the prestige of the authors.{{citation needed|date=October 2023}}
-====Confusion about its classification as a logical fallacy but a sound inductive criterion====
+===Confusion about its classification as a logical fallacy but a sound inductive criterion===
-Some authors fail to distinguish between the classification of this argumentum ad verecundiam as a logical fallacy, and its classification as a fallacy within the inductive method 'only' when the authority is false or their claims disputed; but failing to address that the weight of this argument can never be more than relative and never a proof since it is logically invalid. This serious mistake has sadly been widely popularized in the last few decades, and lead to the wrong belief that the ad verecundiam argument is logically valid and therefore an absolute proof.{{citation needed|date=October 2023}}
+The qualification of this type of argument as logical fallacy implies that it is not a valid way to deduce a conclusion, that is, to prove it.<ref name="The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy" /> This does not mean that a claim from a credible respected authority does not generally have a bigger probability of being correct than that of somebody who has no expertise at all; but the strength of this argument is not absolute as is believed by some.
+==Use in science==
+Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority<ref name="occultatoms"/><ref name="Principles_of_Psychology"/><ref name="The Science of Ethics"/> as [[Authority (sociology)|authority]] has no place in science.<ref name="Principles_of_Psychology" /><ref>{{cite book|last1= Stevenson|first1= I.|title= Some of My Journeys in Medicine|date= 1990|publisher= The University of Southwestern Louisiana|page= 18|url= https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2015/11/some-of-my-journeys-in-medicine.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1= Quick|first1= James Campbell|last2= Little|first2= Laura M.|last3= Cooper|first3= Cary L.|last4= Gibbs|first4= Philip C.|last5= Nelson|first5= Debra|journal= International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology|date= 2010|page= 278|title= Organizational Behavior|url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229724832}}</ref> [[Carl Sagan]] wrote of arguments from authority: "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.' ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."<ref name="Ballantine Books"/> Conversely, it has been argued that science is fundamentally dependent on arguments from authority to progress as "they allow science to avoid forever revisiting the same ground".<ref name="Sismondo, Sergio 1999 p106"/>
+One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,<ref>{{Citation|first= Theophilus S.|last= Painter|title= Studies in mammalian spermatogenesis. II. The spermatogenesis of man|journal= Journal of Experimental Zoology|volume= 37|issue= 3|date= April 1923|pages= 291–336|doi= 10.1002/jez.1400370303}}</ref> when leading American zoologist [[Theophilus Painter]] declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,<ref name ="Painter_Account" /><ref name="48_taught">{{cite journal|last1= Mertens|first1= Thomas|title= The Role of Factual Knowledge in Biology Teaching|journal= [[The American Biology Teacher]]|date= October 1979|volume= 41|issue= 7|doi= 10.2307/4446671|pages= 395–419|jstor= 4446671}}</ref> that humans had 24 pairs of [[chromosomes]]. From the 1920s until 1956,<ref>{{Citation|last1= Tjio|first1= Joe Hin|last2= Levan|first2= Albert|date= May 1956|title= The Chromosome Number of Man|journal= Hereditas|doi= 10.1111/j.1601-5223.1956.tb03010.x|volume= 42|issue= 1–2|pages= 723–4|pmid= 345813|doi-access= free}}</ref> scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,<ref>{{Citation | last= O'Connor |first= Clare |year= 2008 |title= Human Chromosome Number |publisher= Nature |url= http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Human-Chromosome-Number-294 |access-date= April 24, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1= Gartler|first1= Stanley|title= The Chromosome Number in Humans: A Brief History|journal= [[Nature Reviews Genetics]]|date= 2006|volume= 7|issue= 8|pages= 655–60|url= http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/The-chromosome-number-in-humans-a-brief-15575|doi= 10.1038/nrg1917|pmid= 16847465|s2cid= 21365693}}</ref><ref name ="48_taught" /> despite subsequent counts totaling the [[Chromosome#Human chromosomes|correct number]] of 23.<ref name="Painter_Account">{{cite book|last1= Glass|first1= Bentley|title= Theophilus Shickel Painter|date= 1990|publisher= [[National Academy of Sciences]]|location= Washington, DC|pages= 316–17|url= http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/painter-theophilus-shickel.pdf}}</ref><ref name="Orrell_2008">{{cite book|last1= Orrell|first1= David PhD.|title= The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction|date= 2008|pages= [https://archive.org/details/futureofeverythi0000orre/page/184 184]–85|title-link= Apollo's Arrow}}</ref> Even textbooks<ref name="Painter_Account" /> with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24<ref name="Orrell_2008"/> based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.<ref name="Down_Binder">{{cite journal|last1= Kevles|first1= Daniel J.|title= Human Chromosomes--Down's Disorder and the Binder's Mistakes|journal= Engineering and Science|date= 1985|page= 9|url= http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/594/2/Kevles.pdf}}</ref>
-The qualification of this type of argument as logical fallacy implies that it is not a valid  way to deduce a conclusion, that is, to prove it.<ref name="The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy" /> This doesn't mean that a claim from a credible respected authority doesn't generally have a bigger probability of being correct than that of somebody who has no expertise at all; but the strength of this argument is not absolute as it's wrongfully believed by some.<ref name="The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy" />
+This seemingly established number generated [[confirmation bias]] among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so".<ref name ="Down_Binder"/> Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence",<ref name="Orrell_2008"/> and scientists who obtained the accurate number modified<ref name="Hsudo">{{cite journal|last1= T. C.|first1= Hsu|title= Out of the Dark Ages: Human and Mammalian Cytogenetics: An Historical Perspective|journal= Cell|date= 1979|url= http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/0092-8674%2879%2990249-6.pdf|doi= 10.1016/0092-8674(79)90249-6|volume= 18|issue= 4|pages= 1375–1376|s2cid= 54330665}}</ref> or discarded<ref name="Liver">{{cite journal|last1= Unger|first1= Lawrence|last2= Blystone|first2= Robert|title= Paradigm Lost: The Human Chromosome Story|journal= [[Bioscene]]|date= 1996|url= http://amcbt.indstate.edu/volume_22/v22-2p3-9.pdf|access-date= 2016-03-24|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060905015828/http://amcbt.indstate.edu/volume_22/v22-2p3-9.pdf|archive-date= 2006-09-05|url-status= dead}}</ref> their data to agree with Painter's count.
-In general the issue shares many similarities with the issues which arise within the [[philosophy of testimony]].
-=== {{anchor|False authority}} Appeal to false authority ===
-This fallacy is used when a person appeals to a false authority as evidence for a claim.<ref>{{cite web|title=Argument from False Authority|url= https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-False-Authority|website=Logically Fallcious}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=False Authority: When People Rely on the Wrong Experts|url= https://effectiviology.com/false-authority/|website=Effectiviology}}</ref> These fallacious arguments from [[authority]] are the result of citing a non-authority as an authority.<ref name="skepdic">{{cite web|url=http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html|title=Appeal to Authority|ref=skepdic|last1=Carroll|first1=Robert|website=[[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]}}</ref> The philosophers [[Irving Copi]] and [[Carl Cohen (philosopher)|Carl Cohen]] characterized it as a fallacy "when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand".<ref name="Woods">{{cite book |last=Woods |first=John |editor1-last=Gabbay |editor1-first=D.M. |editor2-last=Pelletier |editor2-first=F.J. |editor3-last=Woods |editor3-first=J. |title=Logic: A History of its Central Concepts |date=2012 |publisher=North-Holland |isbn=978-0-08-093170-8 |page=561 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9mwtRDXVM2wC&q=%22ad+verecundiam%22 |chapter=A History of the Fallacies in Western Logic |series=Handbook of the History of Logic }}</ref> Copi stated: "In attempting to make up one's mind on a difficult and complicated question, one may seek to be guided by the judgment of an acknowledged expert who has studied the matter thoroughly. [. . .] This method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate. [ . . . ] But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of that authority's special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ".<ref>Irving M. Copi, ''Introduction to Logic'', p. 98, Macmillan Publishing Co. (7th ed. 1986).</ref>
-In other words, one could say that the premise of the argument does not hold in such a case, rendering the reasoning fallacious.{{pb}} An example of the fallacy of appealing to an authority in an unrelated field would be citing [[Albert Einstein]] as an authority for a determination on religion when his primary expertise was in [[physics]].<ref name="skepdic" />
-It is also a fallacious ''[[ad hominem]]'' argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.<ref>{{cite web |last=Williamson |first=Owen |title=Master List of Logical Fallacies |url=http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm|publisher=[[The University of Texas at El Paso]]}}</ref> As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.
-Other related fallacious arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. For instance, the [[appeal to poverty]] is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Ruggiero|first1=Tim|title=Logical Fallacies|url=http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#argumentum%20ad%20lazarum%20--%20The%20fallacy%20of%20supposing%20a%20conclusion%20is%20valid%20because%20the%20argument%20is%20made%20by%20a%20poor%20person.%20It%20is%20the%20opposite%20of%20the%20ad%20crumenam%20fallacy.}}</ref> When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is a fallacious ''appeal to the common man''.<ref name="Common_man_ref">{{cite web|last1=Bennett|first1=B.|title=Appeal to the Common Man|url=http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/24-appeal-to-common-folk|website=Logically Fallacious}}</ref>
 == Roots in cognitive bias ==
-Arguments from authority that are based on the idea that a person should conform to the opinion of a perceived authority or authoritative group are rooted in psychological [[cognitive biases]]<ref>{{Cite book |doi = 10.1057/9780230297616_5|chapter = Social Influence: Modes and Modalities|title = The Social Psychology of Communication|pages = 87–106|year = 2011|last1 = Sammut|first1 = Gordon|last2 = Bauer|first2 = Martin W|isbn = 978-0-230-24736-9|url = https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/83138/1/Social_influence_modes_and_modalities_2011.pdf}}</ref> such as the [[Asch effect]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Delameter|first1=Andrew|title=Contrasting Scientific & Non-Scientific Approaches to Acquiring Knowledge|url=http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/psych/delam/57/Lecture1.pptx|agency=City University of New York|date=2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Sheldon|first1=Brian|last2=Macdonald|first2=Geraldine|title=A Textbook of Social Work|date=2010|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dt6NAgAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|page=40|isbn=9781135282615}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bates |first1=Jordan |title=12 Psychological Tactics Donald Trump Uses to Manipulate the Masses |url=https://highexistence.com/12-psychological-tactics-donald-trump-uses-to-manipulate-the-masses/ |location=11. Appeals to Authority}}</ref> In repeated and modified instances of the [[Asch conformity experiments]], it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.<ref>{{Citation |last= McLeod| first= Samuel| year= 2008| title= Asch Experiment| publisher= Simply Psychology|url= http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html}}</ref>
+Arguments from authority that are based on the idea that a person should conform to the opinion of a perceived authority or authoritative group are rooted in psychological [[cognitive biases]]<ref>{{Cite book |doi = 10.1057/9780230297616_5|chapter = Social Influence: Modes and Modalities|title = The Social Psychology of Communication|pages = 87–106|year = 2011|last1 = Sammut|first1 = Gordon|last2 = Bauer|first2 = Martin W|isbn = 978-0-230-24736-9|url = https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/83138/1/Social_influence_modes_and_modalities_2011.pdf}}</ref> such as the [[Asch effect]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Delameter|first1=Andrew|title=Contrasting Scientific & Non-Scientific Approaches to Acquiring Knowledge|url=http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/psych/delam/57/Lecture1.pptx|agency=City University of New York|date=2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Sheldon|first1=Brian|last2=Macdonald|first2=Geraldine|title=A Textbook of Social Work|date=2010|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dt6NAgAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|page=40|isbn=9781135282615}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bates |first1=Jordan |title=12 Psychological Tactics Donald Trump Uses to Manipulate the Masses |date=16 March 2016 |url=https://highexistence.com/12-psychological-tactics-donald-trump-uses-to-manipulate-the-masses/ |at=11. Appeals to Authority}}</ref> In repeated and modified instances of the [[Asch conformity experiments]], it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.<ref>{{Citation |last= McLeod| first= Samuel| year= 2008| title= Asch Experiment| publisher= Simply Psychology|url= http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html}}</ref>
 Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers found that "Participants reported considerable [[Stress (psychological)|distress]] under the group pressure", with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.<ref>{{Citation |last= Webley| first= Paul| title= A partial and non-evaluative history of the Asch effect| publisher=[[University of Exeter]]|url= http://people.exeter.ac.uk/PWebley/psy1002/asch.html}}</ref>
@@ Line 68: / Line 55: @@
 Another study shining light on the psychological basis of the fallacy as it relates to perceived authorities are the [[Milgram experiments]], which demonstrated that people are more likely to go along with something when it is presented by an authority.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal | last1 = Milgram | first1 = S | year = 1965 | title = Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority | journal = Human Relations | volume = 18 | issue = 1| pages = 57–76 | doi=10.1177/001872676501800105| s2cid = 37505499 }}</ref> In a variation of a study where the researchers did not wear lab coats, thus reducing the perceived authority of the tasker, the obedience level dropped to 20% from the original rate, which had been higher than 50%. Obedience is encouraged by reminding the individual of what a perceived authority states and by showing them that their opinion goes against this authority.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>
-Scholars have noted that certain environments can produce an ideal situation for these processes to take hold, giving rise to [[groupthink]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://disruptedphysician.blog/2014/12/page/2/|title=December 2014 – Page 2|website=Disrupted Physician}}</ref> In groupthink, individuals in a group feel inclined to minimize conflict and encourage conformity. Through an appeal to authority, a group member might present that opinion as a consensus and encourage the other group members to engage in groupthink by not disagreeing with this perceived consensus or authority.<ref>Definition of GROUPTHINK. (2017). Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groupthink</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Rossi|first1=Stacey (2006)|title=Examination of Exclusion Rates in Massachusetts Public Schools|url=http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492086.pdf}}</ref> One paper about the philosophy of mathematics states that, within academia, <blockquote>If...a person accepts our discipline, and goes through two or three years of graduate study in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking, and is no longer the critical outsider he once was...If the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit.<ref name=The_Ideal_Mathematician>{{cite book|last1=David|first1=Phillip J.|last2=Hersh|first2=Reuben|title=New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics|date=1998|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|page=8|url=http://users-cs.au.dk/danvy/the-ideal-mathematician.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042349/http://users-cs.au.dk/danvy/the-ideal-mathematician.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2016-03-04}}</ref></blockquote>
+Scholars have noted that certain environments can produce an ideal situation for these processes to take hold, giving rise to [[groupthink]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://disruptedphysician.blog/2014/12/page/2/|title=December 2014 – Page 2|website=Disrupted Physician|date=22 December 2014 }}</ref> In groupthink, individuals in a group feel inclined to minimize conflict and encourage [[conformity]]. Through an appeal to authority, a group member might present that opinion as a consensus and encourage the other group members to engage in groupthink by not disagreeing with this perceived consensus or authority.<ref>Definition of GROUPTHINK. (2017). Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groupthink</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Rossi|first1=Stacey (2006)|title=Examination of Exclusion Rates in Massachusetts Public Schools|url=http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492086.pdf}}</ref> One paper about the philosophy of mathematics states that, within academia,
+<blockquote>If...a person accepts our discipline, and goes through two or three years of graduate study in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking, and is no longer the critical outsider he once was...If the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit.<ref name=The_Ideal_Mathematician>{{cite book|last1=David|first1=Phillip J.|last2=Hersh|first2=Reuben|title=New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics|date=1998|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|page=8|url=http://users-cs.au.dk/danvy/the-ideal-mathematician.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042349/http://users-cs.au.dk/danvy/the-ideal-mathematician.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2016-03-04}}</ref></blockquote>
+Corporate environments are similarly vulnerable to appeals to perceived authorities and experts leading to groupthink,<ref>{{cite web|last1=Lookwin|first1=B. (2015)|title=Biopharma Training|url=http://www.biopharminternational.com/raising-bar-biopharma-training|access-date=2017-09-12|archive-date=2017-09-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170912195209/http://www.biopharminternational.com/raising-bar-biopharma-training|url-status=dead}}</ref> as are governments and militaries.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Janis|first1=Irving L.|title=Groupthink|journal=Psychology Today|date=1971|url=http://agcommtheory.pbworks.com/f/GroupThink.pdf}}</ref>
+== See also ==
-Corporate environments are similarly vulnerable to appeals to perceived authorities and experts leading to groupthink,<ref>{{cite web|last1=Lookwin|first1=B. (2015)|title=Biopharma Training|url=http://www.biopharminternational.com/raising-bar-biopharma-training}}</ref> as are governments and militaries.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Janis|first1=Irving L.|title=Groupthink|journal=Psychology Today|date=1971|url=http://agcommtheory.pbworks.com/f/GroupThink.pdf}}</ref>
+{{Div col}}
+* [[Authority bias]]
+* [[Credentialism]]
+* [[Divine command theory]]
+* [[Ethos#Rhetoric|Ethos]]
+* [[Euthyphro dilemma]]
+* ''[[Ipse dixit]]''
+* [[Manifesto of the Ninety-Three]]
+* [[Name-dropping]]
+* [[Nobel disease]]
+* [[Philosophy of testimony]]
+{{Div col end}}
+== Notes ==
+{{Notelist}}
 == References ==