Talk:Argument from authority: Difference between revisions

Philosophy: Logic Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

There is a request, submitted by Perfect Orange Sphere (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "An important and often discussed but somewhat complex subject - auditory learners might benefit from a spoken overview".

Wow I just noticed the verecundiam in Latin actually means to shame and auctoritate actually means authority. We should include something about this in the article. Doug Walton's book "Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority"^[1] is a citation to start, but I have to come back to it later. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth:I think they are very similar, in this usage it actually refers to the idea that one should be in reverence of or defer to a particular authority. Here is some (likely unintelligible) explanation.

verēcundia

1.knowing one's place: regarded as a virtue; coyness, modesty

2. in shame (of one's self in respect to something/someone else), awe (in respect to the superior)

From vereor ("(to/I) respect, (to/I) revere, (to/I) rightfully fear") and cundia ("begotten from, mother(not really a good translation), source of")

When synthesized (in the context of a type of augment) this becomes something like "with respect to the source of my shame (due to inferiority) and the cause of my righteous fear I believe what X(the source of these things) says and you should too". Which is to say that it is an argument done in deference to an authority.

The use of this argument implies that one can not convince the "opponent" of the merits of one's claims and thus defers to a mutually "respected" source without further evidence (in the strictest sense).

(my post represents an accumulation or synthesis from a large variety of sources and slight modifications in spelling of the words (in english letters) and should not be referenced in the article)

Translation across this vast amount of years and culture is hard, and finding a truly reliable source to do so is difficult. Endercase (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you do not have to go that far. Locke coined the phrase in 1690. It means whatever he meant. What this means for the article is we should not present "argumentum ad verecundiam" as Latin for "argument from authority" as that would be "argumentum ad auctoritate". I found some places that use "argumentum ad auctoritate", but I think we do not need to mention it here as it is uncommon. We should present "argumentum ad verecundiam" as a different name for the argument type. We should also decide if we want content in the body about the Latin phrase, the meaning of "verecundiam" and any change in meaning over time. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth: Ah, well then, this may be an issue of Due weight. We should present both IMO. "argumentum ad verecundiam" is still a more common useage compared to "argumentum ad auctoritate" if the number of google hit is a good metric. Though if you have multiple (2+) reliable sources for "argumentum ad auctoritate" then by all means we should include it. I will do so now. Please add your citations when you have time, in case this is challenged. I do not see a significant different between their usages at this time though. Endercase (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth: Could you provide RS for "argumentum ad auctoritate"? It has been challenged, it will be removed without RS. Endercase (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase:The point I tried to make was "argumentum ad verecundiam" is not Latin for "argument from authority" and shouldn't be presented as such. I do not feel "argumentum ad auctoritate" should be in the article. I guess I will take a stab at re-writing that first sentence and then you tell me what you think. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth: You should cite the translation (latin for "argument to shame"). Translations are an issue in wikipedia I think. They require more RS I think. And maybe 'originally called argumentum ad verecundiam' should read as : 'First recorded usage as argumentum ad verecundiam' or something. Endercase (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth: Maybe you should edit here as we are close to a merge: User:Endercase/Argument from authority introduction. Endercase (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: I used Google translate. There wasn't a citation for the translation before, why should it need one now? However I will have a look and put something in. And what merge? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth: Yeah, Google translate is not RS, we aren't even allowed to link to machine translations of foreign Wikipedia articles as they often miss nuance (and are sometimes compleatly incorrect). The LEDE has been rewritten primarily due to edit warring here, the proposed LEDE is publicly available and hosted at on the other side of this link here. Endercase (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I used a more common translation and added citations. You can incorporate them as you see fit in your new and improved version. I really came here just to point out that it is not a direct translation nor even close. I am not very interested in participating in any arguments or further re-writes. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs some work but it is re-located: Here. It also has an attached working talkpage. Endercase (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we think it is ready (or nearly so). I have asked for comments from a number of users. Please visit the proposal and provide criticism. It currently has 3 editors agreeing on it and none opposing it. There are also a number of pulled quotes from RS on the talk page for easy reference. Endercase (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FL or Atlanta: I saw your edit removing "argumentum ad auctoritatem" as an alternative Latin phrase, and I was about to revert it back. I thought I remembered seeing that alternative name in the WP:RS. However, from a diligent Google search, it seems the most reliable WP:RS call it simply "argumentum ad verecundiam", "argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy" or simply "ad verecundiam" [1]. So, I will leave it unless someone finds better WP:RS to justify it.

I did, however, find one source that did discuss and distinguish argumentum ad verecundiam from argumentum ad auctoritatem [2] which said:

There is a difference between the argumentum ad auctoriatem (appeal to qualified authority) and the argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to unqualified authority). Both forms of argument propose that a certain position must be accepted on the basis that some prominent authority (be it an individual or community) accepts it. There is, however, a clear distinction between the two, since the former is a valid argument and the latter is not. An argumentum ad auctoritatem claims that something is to be accepted because a real auctoritas, or authority in the relevant field, accepts it....

I do not know enough about the qualifications of the author to know if they have sufficient expertise in the subject matter--I don't make the fallacious form of the argument we are discussing by citing improper authority about the topic "appeal to authority". :) --David Tornheim (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I undid it on the grounds that it was not a minor edit and it was marked as so. I will ask the Adding editor for RS. Endercase (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quote above was written by Giovanni Boniolo (see his credentials on page 349). The Google book is Swiss cheese with every other page blocked, so I do not know where he gets his ideas on the subject. I get the impression the study of rhetoric is full of people who present their own ideas as the consensus of the field. I do not think "argumentum ad auctoritatem" should be mentioned anywhere in the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard-of-Earth A number of the editors have PhD's in Philosophy. If there was a problem with that portion of the text, I would assume they would have caught it. I believe in one of the sources discussing Locke, the term "auctoritatem" might have come up. I'm a bit too tired to try and find that right now. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim oh my goodness, did you just make an argument from authority on the argument from authority talk page? Well I do not have a PhD, so I guess I should stick to removing vandalism and neatening formats and stay away from content. But to a degree you are right, anyone can just make up a name for a supposed unique rhetoric element and it may take someone with a PhD to sort out the WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. That said, I looked in google books and I see the phrase "argumentum ad auctoritatem" has been around for quite a while, so I will retract my statement. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This new proposed lede (WP:LEDE) is ready to be incorporated into the article. Three of us (Endercase,MjolnirPants and David Tornheim), have worked diligently on this lede since March 22, 2017 here as proposed by Endercase here who welcomed all editors to participate here on March 22, 2017. Further notice to review the proposed lede was given on April 1, 2017 and again on April 16, 2017.

The three of us are agreement that it is ready to be incorporated (Endercase, David Tornheim MjolnirPants) and intend to replace the current lede with this version of 19:15, 16 April 2017.

If you disagree, or propose changes please let us know. It would probably be better to discuss objections at the project page and make mention on the talk page here if you do. We intend to make the change very soon if no objections are raised. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim and MjolnirPants: The change has been made! Endercase (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with both versions is that they don't talk about the other side enough. There's a deep divide on the issue and no consensus. I included the sources from both versions so now the page reflects that FL or Atlanta (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What rings clarion is the need for congruity on this vexing row. Whilst my own theorem is that each man must arrive at his own denouement that lies atop the apex of the mount of individual discovery that he must clamber atop; sometimes roughly and others smooth, to simply heed every Crier higher on the path calling "Turn away, ere you go down the wrong path" or "come hither, 'tis this way" is an abandonment of one's duty to seek truth undissembled. Yet, by pronouncing such an averment on this resource, would I not be violating my own creed? Shall I become the Crier, now braying "turn from all voices, turn from a chorus of voices; examine the path itself"? No -- I shall catalogue the proclamations of others, and in so doing, annotate the path rather than add another voice to the cacophony. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PraiseTheShroom: I quite enjoy your choice of words. I agree that we must achieve congruity, how do you suggest we do so? I would also like your opinion and criticism on LEDE that I was responsible for ultimately adding here. I agree that each individual must seek and find their own authorities and truths but at the truths of others are worth pondering. We must become each Criers for our own views else our perspectives are in danger and falling out and being lost to the whole. All views have value and should be duly catalogued and discussed IMO, though here we must limit ourselves to "reliably" published citations and avoid "original" research. I will revert to the LEDE that was discussed among a larger group of peers and was approved. Though a rational and supported proposal by any party should be rationally evaluated upon such time as the proposal has been received. I dislike the tendency to change consensus based wording to the wording of a single peer (one voice). Thank you for you input thus far, I look forward to our future discussions. Endercase (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FL or Atlanta: What "other side"? The LEDE that you and PraiseTheShroom have put in place says the same thing in a poor format as the one that was added after weeks of work. The LEDE was open for criticism during that entire time (see above notices). Please refain from changing the LEDE again without bringing up your proposed changes here for consensus. We must work together here or nothing will get done. Endercase (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one's obligated to check random pages. The only ones that matter are the Talk. The fact you worked on something on one of your personal pages doesn't somehow make it official. What ultimately matters are the sources, and it looks like the ones you gave are mostly all in PraiseTheShroom's version. The "consensus" here is that version: one that discusses each side as per the sources, which is what we've got. This is WP:POLE in action: some people are big fans of appeals to authority, some people aren't. By all of us pushing, we've gotten a very balanced article. (Which honestly I'd say gives way too much credence to this fallacy). Reverting good moves towards a consensus version in favor of your pet version is disruptive editing. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't cite the sources in the way you did again. Many of them were out of context and one was a youtube video. Please refer to the guidelines for the proper addition of sources. Endercase (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources seemed good to me - what was "out of context"? And what's wrong with a video from a published historian and archeologist? Do the words change if he writes them on an article on a website instead of speaking them? If videos weren't acceptable sources, why would Wikipedia even have a citation category for citing A/V media? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The assertion that there is a debate in philosophy over whether this subject is always a fallacy or not is both false, and OR. As implemented in the version Endercase reverted, it was evinced entirely by synthesizing material from references which are either inappropriate or which did not support the claim they were cited in. There are no sources at all stating that there is any serious debate over whether it is always fallacious to appeal to authority. The closest thing to it are sources which debate whether or not the fallacious use (appealing to a non-authority being represented as an authority) is fundamentally different from the legitimate use (appealing to an actual authority). Even that debate is rather low key, because the "there is no distinction" side tends to correctly point out that there are circumstances under which appealing to a legitimate authority can be fallacious (such as quote mining, or presenting a depiction of a minority view as the consensus). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]