The appeal to authority (also known as the argument from authority, authority fallacy, appeal to expertise, appeal to expert opinion, and argumentum ad verecundiam) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is assumed to be true because it was made by a perceived authority figure.
In addition, the appeal to authority is sometimes used in a broader sense, to refer to any argument that relies on the authority of someone to support an argument associated with them, and especially to support an argument that they made directly. In this case, a distinction can be made between two main types of appeals to authority:
- Sound (or reasonable / legitimate / appropriate) appeals to authority. These arguments use authority as supporting evidence in a way that’s logically sound, for example by saying “she’s an expert on the topic, and what she’s saying aligns with what most other experts in the field are saying, so it seems likely that she’s right” or “she’s an expert on this topic and he’s not, so all things being equal it’s more likely that she’s right than it is that he is”.
- Unsound (or unreasonable / illegitimate / inappropriate / misleading / fallacious) appeals to authority. These arguments use authority in a logically unsound way, for example by saying “she’s an expert on the topic, so she must be right” or “she’s an expert on this topic and he’s not, so she must be right and he must be wrong”. Furthermore, this term is sometimes used specifically to refer to arguments that rely on false authority (e.g., someone whose expertise is irrelevant to the discussion).
Appeals to authority play a major role in discussions on various topics, so it’s important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about appeals to authority, and see how you can respond to their use by others, as well as how you can avoid using them fallaciously yourself.
Explanation of the appeal to authority
Appeals to authority generally involve the following basic logical structure:
Premise 1: Person X made claim Y. (Or something similar, like “Person X thinks that Y is true.”)
Premise 2: Person X is an authority figure in relation to claim Y. (Or something similar, like “Person X is an expert in the field of claim Y.”)
Premise 3: If someone is an authority figure in relation to something, then what they say about it must be true.
Conclusion: Claim Y must be true.
The issue here is the false premise that if someone is an authority figure in relation to something then what they say about it must be true. This premise is often implicit, meaning that people don’t say it outright, even though it’s a key part of their reasoning. Furthermore, people who use appeals to authority may intentionally obscure their reliance on this false premise in order to make it harder to identify the flaw in their reasoning, for example by focusing on other aspects of the argument, such as emphasizing why the authority figure in question has strong and relevant authority.
Because fallacious appeals to authority have a flaw in their premises, they’re considered an informal logical fallacy. More specifically, they’re a type of genetic fallacy, since they focus on the source of an argument, rather than on the argument itself.
However, relying on authority in arguments isn’t inherently fallacious, and can be not only reasonable but also advisable, for example when the authority is an important factor to consider. As such, the issue with appeals to authority isn’t that authority is mentioned, but rather that authority is mentioned in a way which blindly assumes that authority figures are always right. Another way to think about this is that, while the authority associated with a claim can increase the likelihood that a claim is true, appeals to authority wrongly argue that this association guarantees that the claim is true.
Note: There’s no consensus on what constitutes an appeal to authority, since there is much disagreement on the topic, and many theoretical discussions on various aspects of these arguments. The present article presents common ways in which these arguments are conceptualized, while focusing on the most relevant aspects from a practical perspective.
Appeals to authority and false authority
The appeal to false authority (or argument from false authority) is a fallacious argument that relies on the statements of a false authority figure, who is framed as a credible authority on the topic being discussed. For example, an appeal to false authority could involve saying that we should listen to what an uneducated actor has to say when it comes to different types of medical treatments.
The appeal to false authority can occur together with the appeal to authority, but the two fallacies are distinct from one another, so one can occur without the other. This is illustrated in the following examples:
“This guy is a certified dietitian, so if he says that this diet is effective then it has to be effective.” (This argument contains an appeal to authority, since it claims that the authority figure must be right, but it doesn’t contain an appeal to false authority, since the authority figure has valid expertise.)
“This guy is a famous movie star, so if he says that this diet is effective then he might be right.” (This argument doesn’t contain an appeal to authority, since it doesn’t claim that the authority figure must be right, but it does contain an appeal to false authority, since the supposed authority figure has irrelevant expertise.)
“This guy is a famous movie star, so if he says that this diet is effective then it has to be effective.” (This argument contains an appeal to authority, since it claims that the authority figure must be right, and also an appeal to false authority, since the supposed authority figure has irrelevant expertise.)
“This guy is a certified dietitian, so if he says that this diet is effective then he might be right.” (This argument doesn’t contain an appeal to authority, since it doesn’t claim that the authority figure must be right, and also doesn’t contain an appeal to false authority, since the authority figure has valid expertise.)
Fallacious appeals to authority are sometimes viewed as those that involve a false authority in particular, in which case the terms “appeal to authority” and “appeal to false authority” are used interchangeably. However, this is problematic, because it eliminates the distinction between the two fallacies, and ignores the common way in which arguments can fallaciously rely on valid authority.
Examples of appeals to authority
A basic example of an appeal to authority is the argument “an expert said that this is true, so it must be true”. This argument ignores the fact that the expert might be wrong, which could be evident in things like the expert being wrong about similar things in the past or in other experts disagreeing with this one.
The following is a similar example of an appeal to authority, this time where the person using the fallacious argument is framing themselves as the authority figure:
“I’m an expert in this field, so if I say that this theory is right, then it’s right.”
Furthermore, appeals to authority can involve entities other than people. For example:
“If this textbook said that it’s true, then it must be true.”
“If this famous organization said that it’s true, then it must be true.”
In addition, appeals to authority can involve different structures, all relying on the same basic premises. An example of this is the following argument, where someone bases their claim on a quote that they attribute to an authority figure:
“Einstein famously said that ‘science cannot explain everything’, so clearly science has its limits.”
Such variations of the appeal to authority can also involve combining it with other logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques. The most notable of these is the appeal to false authority, as in the following example from advertising:
“Our diet was endorsed by this famous movie star, so you know that it definitely works.”
Alternatively, the appeal to authority may be combined with rhetorical techniques such as equivocation and circumlocution, in order to make the authority figure vague or anonymous, or to make the whole argument more confusing, as in the following example from politics:
Politician: “Many experts are saying that my proposed policy will be effective, so it will definitely work well.”
Journalist: “Can you tell us more about these experts and the evidence that they’re basing this on?”
Politician: “Look, I don’t know why you would question these esteemed experts, who clearly know quite a lot about the field, and clearly have the necessary expertise to comment on the policy, but what I do know for sure—and there’s really no doubt about it if we’re being honest—is that if they say that the policy is effective then that means that the policy is effective, and we should implement it as soon as possible.”
Finally, note that it’s also possible to mention authority as supporting evidence in an argument in a reasonable (i.e., logically sound and non-fallacious) manner. An example of this is the following argument:
“I don’t know much about medicine, so I haven’t looked at the scientific evidence directly. But, a recent position paper from the American Medical Association says that there’s almost complete consensus among all the relevant experts based on extensive scientific research, so I’m going to follow what they’re saying, because it seems like the best course of action.”
How to respond to fallacious appeals to authority
There are several ways you can respond to a fallacious appeal to authority:
- Point out the logical flaw in the argument. This refers to the false premise that the appeal to authority relies on, and namely that if someone is an authority figure in relation to something then what they say about it must be true. To do this, you can say something like “I understand that this person is an expert, but that doesn’t mean that what they’re saying is necessarily right”. When doing this, you can also explicitly mention that the argument is an appeal to authority, but this isn’t always the best course of action.
- Ask guiding questions about the flaw in the argument. For example, after pointing out that the argument implicitly assumes that experts must be right, you can ask the person who made the argument whether they think that this premise is true. Alternatively, you can say something like “I see what you mean about them being an expert, but can you explain why this means that what they’re saying must be true?”.
- Demonstrate that authority figures can be wrong. For example, you might point out that the same expert has been wrong in the past or that other experts in the fields were wrong. A general example of this that could be relevant (though it often applies more in the context of false authority) is the Nobel disease, which is a phenomenon where laureates of the prestigious Nobel Prize promote various wrong and highly dubious claims, especially later in life.
- Show that there are conflicting opinions by different authority figures. For example, if someone claims that a certain psychological theory is right because it’s supported by a famous psychology professor, you can show that other famous professors disagree with it. This can be a key way to demonstrate that authority figures can be wrong, especially in some contexts, such as legal testimonies where each side may bring experts that support their stance.
- Ask them what other authority figures think. For example, you can ask them what the expert consensus on the topic is, and whether the opinion of the current authority figure aligns with it or not (while bearing in mind that the consensus isn’t necessarily right either).
- Show that other factors beyond expertise are also relevant. For example, you might show that an expert’s opinion on something is biased because they have some conflict of interest, so they stand to gain from saying something that isn’t necessarily true. This doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily wrong either, but it can be something that’s important to keep in mind.
Which techniques you should use depends on factors such as the original argument, your relationship with the person who made that argument, and what you hope to achieve by responding.
In addition, when responding to appeals to authority, keep the following in mind:
- You should make sure that the argument is fallacious. That’s because not all arguments that involve authority are necessarily fallacious, and authority can be mentioned in a logically sound way that’s relevant to the discussion. If you’re unsure about this, you can ask the person who made the argument some clarifying questions, such as whether they think that the authority figure in question must be right.
- Just because an argument is fallacious, that doesn’t mean that its conclusion is necessarily false. This means that even if an argument involves a fallacious appeal to authority, the conclusion that it reaches could still be true, and assuming otherwise is fallacious in itself.
- You might need to address other issues with the argument. For example, if the authority figure in question is a false authority, you might want to point that out, either instead of or in addition to pointing out the issues with the appeal to authority itself. Similarly, if the person who’s using the appeal to authority is also using the credentials fallacy to discredit an opposing stance, you might need to deal with that issue too. Another issue that you might need to deal with is that there’s often a big difference between what people claim an authority figure said and what the authority actually said; for example, this can happen if the person making the claim misunderstands, misinterprets, or misremembers the original statement, potentially due to issues such as the confirmation bias.
- You might benefit from acknowledging the positive aspects of the argument. For example, if the authority figure in question is genuinely credible, then you can acknowledge this before explaining why the argument is still fallacious (e.g., by saying “I agree that they’re an expert, but that doesn’t mean that what they’re saying is necessarily right”).
In summary, to respond to appeals to authority, you can point out the relevant logical flaw, ask guiding questions about the flaw, demonstrate that authority figures can be wrong, show that there are conflicting opinions by different authority figures, ask about the opinion of other authority figures, and show that other factors beyond expertise also matter (e.g., conflict of interest). When doing this, you should keep in mind that not all arguments involving authority are fallacious, that even fallacious arguments involving authority don’t necessarily have a false conclusion, that you might need to address other issues with the argument (e.g., reliance on false authority), and that you might benefit from acknowledging the positive aspects of the argument (e.g., valid credibility of the authority figure).
How to avoid using fallacious appeals to authority
If you realize that your argument involves a fallacious appeal to authority, or is about to, you can modify the argument to avoid the false assumption that what experts claim must be true. For example, you can do this by changing the phrasing of the argument, so that instead of claiming that something must be true because an expert said it, you will claim that it’s likely to be true, while making sure to also explain why you think that.
You can also focus on the evidence, rather than the authority. For example, if you’re claiming that a certain theory is true, then instead of focusing on the expert who proposed it, you can focus on the evidence that the expert is basing the theory on.
When doing this, be prepared to revise your argument in light of new evidence. This means, for example, that if you’re shown evidence that the opinion of a certain expert is wrong, then you should be open to listening to it and revising your argument accordingly, rather than insisting on their authority while ignoring the evidence.
In addition, make sure to avoid pitfalls that are commonly associated with appeals to authority, such as relying on false authority. Two concepts that you should keep in mind to help with this are the burden of proof, which is the obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for claims that you make, and the Sagan standard, which is the adage that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
Finally, remember that there’s nothing inherently wrong with mentioning authority or expertise in your argument. Often, these factors can be important to the discussion, and entirely reasonable to mention. As such, you shouldn’t always avoid including these things in your argument, but rather make sure that you do so for the right reasons and in the right way.
In summary, to avoid using fallacious appeals to authority, you can focus on evidence (rather than authority), and only mention authority if it’s relevant to do so, and if you can do so in a logically sound way. In addition, you should be prepared to revise your argument in light of new evidence, even if this evidence contradicts the authority figure.
Additional information
Related concepts
One concept that’s closely related to the appeal to authority is the authority bias, which is a cognitive bias that makes people predisposed to believe, support, and obey those that they perceive as authority figures. This bias can make people more likely to use appeals to authority, and to find them convincing and truthful.
However, this bias doesn’t always play a role in appeals to authority. For example, people may use appeals to authority intentionally, even though they know that what they’re saying is fallacious. Furthermore, this bias doesn’t always influence people’s interactions with authority figures, so just because someone agrees with an authority figure, that doesn’t mean that their thinking is biased. For example, people can choose to listen to authority figures based on entirely rational reasoning, such as when they don’t have the skills or resources that are needed to evaluate relevant evidence.
In addition, there are several fallacies, other than the appeal to false authority, that are closely associated with the appeal to authority. The most notable of these are the following:
- The appeal to accomplishments (also known as the argument from accomplishments). This fallacy occurs when someone claims that a certain argument must be right, simply because it was stated by someone with certain accomplishments. This fallacy is similar to the appeal to authority, but focuses on specific accomplishments rather than general authority. Nevertheless, these fallacies can occur together, for example when someone is claimed to be an authority because they have certain accomplishments.
- Ad hominem arguments, and especially the credentials fallacy. An ad hominem argument is a personal attack against the source of an argument, rather than against the argument itself. The credentials fallacy is a type of ad hominem argument, which occurs when someone dismisses an argument by stating that whoever made it doesn’t have proper credentials, so their argument must be wrong or unimportant. These fallacies, and particularly the credentials fallacy, can be viewed as opposites to the appeal to authority (or as negative counterparts to it), since they argue against an argument based on its source, whereas the appeal to authority argues in favor of an argument based on its source.
Finally, a concept that’s closely related to the appeal to authority is ipse dixit (Latin for “He himself said” or “He said it himself”), which refers to arguments that are made without any evidence besides the opinion of an authority figure. This term is sometimes used as another name for the appeal to authority, although it can also be used in other senses, particularly in legal contexts.
Similarly, an associated concept in legal contexts is “Argumentum ab auctoritate est fortissimum (in lege)”, which is Latin for “Argument from authority is the most forceful (in law)”. This denotes that “arguments based on positive sources of authority or precedents, or the opinions of respected legal authorities, are considered the most persuasive kind of arguments”.
Origin and history of the appeal to authority
Questions about the role of authority in argumentation have been posed at many points in history. A general conceptualization of the appeal to authority, in particular, is attributed to philosopher John Locke, who described this concept (which he called “argumentum ad verecundiam”), as follows:
“…it may be worth our while a little to reflect on four sorts of arguments that men, in their reasonings with others, do ordinarily make use of to prevail on their assent; or at least so to awe them, as to silence their opposition…
…the first is to allege the opinions of men, whose parts, learning, eminency, power, or some other cause has gained a name, and settled their reputation in the common esteem with some kind of authority. When men arc established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it, and question the authority of men who are in possession of it. This is apt to be censured, as carrying with it too much of pride, when a man does not readily yield to the determination of approved authors, which is wont to be received with respect and submission by others; and it is looked upon as insolence for a man to set up and adhere to his own opinion, against the current stream of antiquity; or to put it in the balance against that of some learned doctor, or otherwise approved writer. Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities, thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them. This, I think, may be called argumentum ad verecundiam.”
— From “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (published circa 1,689)
In addition, another notable description of this fallacy has been proposed by philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:
“Those who are so zealous and eager to settle debated questions by citing authorities, are really glad when they are able to put the understanding and the insight of others into the field in place of their own, which are wanting. Their number is legion. For, as Seneca says, there is no man but prefers belief to the exercise of judgment—unusquisque mavult credere quam judicare. In their controversies such people make a promiscuous use of the weapon of authority, and strike out at one another with it. If any one chances to become involved in such a contest, he will do well not to try reason and argument as a mode of defence; for against a weapon of that kind these people are like Siegfrieds, with a skin of horn, and dipped in the flood of incapacity for thinking and judging. They will meet his attack by bringing up their authorities as a way of abashing him—argumentum ad verecundiam, and then cry out that they have won the battle.
— From “The Art of Literature” (originally published in 1,891; the translation here is by Thomas Bailey Saunders)
Finally, other statements have been made about the underlying concept behind the appeal to authority, such as the following quote from astronomer Carl Sagan:
“One of the great commandments of science is, ‘Mistrust arguments from authority.’ (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.) Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. This independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less self-critical, or with pretensions to certitude.”
— From “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” (1995)
Summary and conclusions
- The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is assumed to be true because it was made by a perceived authority figure.
- A basic example of this is the argument that “an expert proposed this theory, so it must be right”.
- To respond to appeals to authority, you can point out the relevant logical flaw, demonstrate that authority figures can be wrong (as in the case of disagreement among experts), and potentially address other issues with the argument (like reliance on false authority).
- Not all arguments involving authority are fallacious, and even fallacious arguments involving authority don’t necessarily have a false conclusion.
- To avoid using fallacious appeals to authority, you can focus on evidence (rather than authority), and only mention authority if it’s relevant and if you can do so in a logically sound way.