Argumentum ad verecundiam
An argumentum ad verecundiam ( Latin for "proof through reverence ") or authority argument is an argument that tries to prove a thesis by appealing to an authority such as an expert or a superior. Since authority as such is not a guarantee of truth, it is not a logically compelling conclusion .
use
In terms of conceptual history , the expression “argumentum ad verecundiam” was originally formulated by John Locke in his essays concerning human understanding (published in 1690, there book 4, chapter 17). In later logic manuals it is explicitly listed as a fallacy .
In principle, it can be justified to rely on the opinion of an expert when deciding for or against an assertion if one has no insight or good reasons oneself . It is assumed that the status of the expertise is associated with the fact that the expert reviews his opinion and has reasons for it himself or sees them confirmed in his experience . This is to be distinguished from a purely rhetorical evasion to “authority”, where the specific justification of a disputed conviction would have to be provided or where there is no connection between the status of the authority and the factual content of the disputed thesis. However, appealing to third-party expertise presupposes that the other parties involved recognize it - in this respect, it is an argumentum ad populum .
The argumentum ad verecundia is of particular relevance for religious epistemology. Already within the framework of the constitution of a Christian theology as a university science in the European 12th – 13th centuries. In the 20th century, questions of method of an appeal to “authority” were discussed for the philosophy of science in theology . The most important systematizations in terms of history, e.g. B. of Thomas Aquinas , see the formal authority of faith and revelation truths in God and conveyed through articles of faith, as it is explicitly formulated and implicitly included in the apostolic creed . Using u. a. Aristotelian epistemology , in particular the Aristotelian topics , sources of theological knowledge are systematized and hierarchized. On the other hand, an independent criteriology and judgment body is called for and discussed early on , for example prominently in Abelard . Here, the game revelation a role, mediated in certain insights by the grace of God, the other as such are not accessible. This idea has been taken up again in modern times by Reformed Epistemology .
rating
To be allowed, an authority argument must have the following properties:
- Authority is trustworthy because it has proven itself.
- The authority is quoted correctly.
- The authority has expertise in the relevant subject area.
- The general rules of reasoning were followed.
- Authorities who hold the opposite view, instead of simply ignoring them, are also quoted and refuted.
Where these points are not fulfilled, the authority is cited unjustifiably and it is a sham argument . The suspicion that it is also an intentional fallacy or a sophism is obvious.
Reconstruction proposals
In his Introduction to Logic , Wesley C. Salmon reconstructed the structure of authority arguments as a case of a "statistical syllogism", that is, as an inductive argument that makes its conclusion at least likely:
| The overwhelming majority of the statements that x makes about S are true. | |
| p is a statement by x about S. | |
| p is true. |
In this form the conclusion is correct, but not necessarily truthful. Salmon also demands that the authority must be quoted correctly, that it must actually also be a professional authority (and not just a celebrity), that S actually has to be the field of expertise of the authority that the Authority could actually know the truth of p if p is true and that no equally suitable authorities contradict p . Where the requirements are not met, he sees a clear abuse of the form of argument.
The figure Consensus gentium is treated by Salmon as a special case of the argumentum ad verecundiam, which is subject to the same conditions.
The more recent systematic epistemology deals with criteria of epistemic justification for the acceptance of "authoritative" statements, especially by "experts", especially in the context of social epistemology.
See also
Special cases
literature
- Douglas Walton: Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
Web links
- Christopher R. Green: Epistemology of Testimony. In: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
- Alvin Goldman : Social Epistemology. In: Edward N. Zalta (Ed.): Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .