Appeals to authority are not automatically fallacious. Citing a virologist on viral transmission is reasonable. The problem is narrower and more specific: authority transferred across domains.
A Nobel laureate in physics commenting on nutrition. A respected economist on vaccine safety. The credentials are genuine, the relevance is not.
What makes this hard is that checking it requires two steps most readers skip: identifying the actual field of expertise, and asking whether the claim falls inside it.
There is a second variant that is harder to catch: the anonymous authority. "Experts say", "studies show", "scientists warn". No name, no institution, no paper. The authority is invoked without being available for inspection.
In a sample of news articles I looked at recently, unattributed appeals to expertise were more common than named ones. That surprised me — I expected the opposite.
For those who moderate or fact-check: do you treat "experts say" as a red flag on its own, or only when the surrounding claim is contested?
0 Comments
No comments yet.