Argumentum ad Vericundiam

Mr. S.'s former students dropping some knowledge!

"Appeal to Improper Authority"

The ad verecundiam logical fallacy occurs when an arguer cites someone or something who/that cannot qualify as an authority for what is being debated. On the flip side, even experts on a topic can occasionally be wrong. Focusing on the argument's logic instead of simply believing the "expert" is generally your best bet.

This might be a fallacy because the "expert" doesn't know enough about the topic to qualify as an authority or because, while they may have the necessary credentials to be considered an authority on the topic, they may be biased and lose credibility because of this fact. They could just be plain wrong this one time, too. 

What does Neymar know about cars? Ever go to Jürgen Klopp's Steak House? What does he know about steak? 

Sure, a doctor of the respiratory system might be an expert on whether smoking is good or bad for me, but what if they are related to the owner of Phillip Morris Tobacco Company and, deep down, they don't care about my health and only care about retiring to a beach mansion on a private Caribbean island? 

What if they slept through all of the "Smoking is Bad for You" units in medical school but managed to graduate with exemplary grades in all of the other units? Can they be trusted to be relied upon as a proper authority on the topic? Fair or not, citing this doctor compromises the argument of the person who cited them.

Essentially, non-experts can be correct, but the likelihood that they are not increases as the topic gets more complex. Similarly, while experts have a higher likelihood of being correct when making claims about a specialized topic, they can still be wrong.

As Carl Sagan once said: "Arguments from authority carry little weight--'authorities' have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future."

The argument itself is much more important than who is making the argument, "expert" or not. Your best bet is to (A) think deeply about what your expert is saying and (B) seek out many authorities and look for a consensus.

There are at least three subcategories of this fallacy:

TESTIMONY BY AN EXPERT

Example: SpongeBob believes Squidward despite the fact that Squidward is clearly not an expert on The Hash Slinger Slasher (HSS). 

While Squidward might, in fact, be correct with what he is saying, SpongeBob should be more critical of what he's saying because there is a higher probability that he could be wrong than if he actually was an expert on the HSS. Maybe the police detective that caught the HSS would be a better person to listen to on the topic.

Example: Senator Smith says, "I'm no scientist, but it has been downright cold this winter. Obviously, Global Warming doesn't exist."

The warming of the Earth is a FACT. It is measurable, and the numbers do not lie. While there is a debate about the causes of Global Warming (even though 97% of climatologists agree that its most significant cause is human in nature), Global Warming itself cannot be disputed...

... especially by someone who is, in fact, a senator and "no scientist."

Example: The rumor is that Dick Rowe, expert talent scout for DECCA Records in the 1960s, famously told the manager of the unsigned Beatles, "I'm sorry, Mr. Epstein, but guitar groups are out."

Clearly, authorities on topics can be wrong. 😨

The Cigna people understand this fallacy and are able to poke fun at it.

Example: "I'm not a real doctor, but I play one on TV."

Looks like the ethos that audiences heap on TV doctors is something that can be confused with true expertise. 

Looking and acting the part can be huge parts of a convincing rhetorical strategy; however, if relied upon too heavily, it can lead to inaccurately considering someone to be a true expert on a topic.

MAJORITY CLAIM OF AUTHORITY

Example: 99% of people can be, have been, and will be wrong.

At one point in history, the majority of people believed the earth was flat.

This is closely related to argumentum ad populum.


AUTHORITY VESTED IN SOCIETY'S LAWS, PRINCIPLES, RELIGIONS, ETC.

Example: Everything Adolf Hitler did was legal in Germany because his Nazi Party made and enforced the laws.

Laws can be as unjust as the people who make them. Legality, according to the culture from which he came, does not transcend logic. Wrong is wrong regardless of whether it's legal or illegal. 

As in The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver, lewd behavior as defined by American laws is not the same thing in a Congolese village. Also, the holy book brought to the Congo by the Price family doesn't have the same authority with the people of the Congo as it does with the people in Jackson, Mississippi. 

Even if both parties in an argument believe in the same laws, principles, religions, etc., their logic can still be faulty in their arguments. Those beliefs exist on a separate plane than facts. While their beliefs and facts might align, they also might not.

Example: Most girls in Afghanistan right now (September 2023) are not legally permitted to attend school.

If one argued that it is wrong for girls to attend school because it is illegal for them to do so, this branch of ad vericundiam would be their fallacy of choice. Legality has no bearing on logic.

Example: "I sneezed in Mr. Spagnolo's classroom, and he yelled at me saying that it is unacceptable to sneeze in his room, and it breaks the rules he posted on the wall. I really feel terrible about it."

Mr. Spagnolo is a "leathern-jerkin, crystal-button, knot-pated, agate-ring, puke-stocking, caddis-garter, smooth-tongue, Spanish pouch" (insult courtesy of William Shakespeare in Part I, Act II, Scene iv of Henry IV). 

Seriously though, if Mr. Spagnolo had a terrible rule like this, it would have no bearing on whether sneezing was acceptable on a human level. 

Sneeze away, comrades!