====== (Appeal to a) false authority ======

Aggravated form of an [[relevancy:authority:index|appeal to authority]]-argument where the authority is flawed in some way or the reference to it is not valid.

> <s invalid>The Earth is flat, because that is what the Bible says.</s>

There are at least two issues with this statement: Firstly, the Bible is not actually an authority in planetary shapes (//false authority//), and secondly that actually no clear reference to the shape of the Earth can be found in the Bible (//false reference//).

===== Other names =====

  * Argument from false authority

===== Description =====

As already described in the article on [[relevancy:authority:index|appeal to authority]], a reference to an authority is usually problematic, since also authorities they can be wrong. However, numerous exceptions are listed there under which they may be valid and useful.

This article, however, is concerned with forms of the authority argument that are invalid //in any case// because necessary conditions have been disregarded.

This shall be exemplified by the following alleged [[wp>Albert Einstein|Einstein]] quote:

> <s invalid "False quote">Albert Einstein says: We use only 10 % of our intellectual capacity.</s>

==== 1. False authority ====

A fundamental condition for accepting  the reference to an authority as a positive contribution is surely that the authority is has actual authorative knowledge (or normative powers) in the subject.

Looking at the above quotation it should be made clear that while [[wp>Albert Einstein|Albert Einstein]] certainly counts as a luminary in his field of expertise, i.e. [[wp>Theoretical physics|Theoretical Physics]], the same is not true for subjects that seem related to this statement, e.g. [[wp>Neurology|Neurology]] or [[wp>Educational research|Educational research]]. Thus his opinions on subjects in these fields are in any way more weighty or significant than those of any other interested layperson.

=== Weak authority ===

A variant of this are authorities which actually //have// expertise or normative powers in a //related// field, but illicitly extend this to adjecent area. Such an argument is //weak//, especially if this is used to argue against some real authority in this field.

For example while the (usually very goodl) education that //medical doctors// have enjoyed gives them a position of authority when it comes to the specific treatment of their patients according to the state of the art in research, and for this reason, their recommendations should normally be taken serious. However, this does not extend to a situation where a physician publicly contradicts the state of research that is done by more specialized medical researchers.

That means that while it is within the expertise of a general physician to recommend specific patients to forego //specific// vaccinations because of their medical history. It is not their field of expertise to generally recommend against vaccinations.

<aside info>
**Note:** It is well within their right to freedom of expression that physicians can freely voice their opinions on vaccinations. However, these should of course then be considered //opinions// and not authoritative statements.
</aside>

=== Anonymous authority ===

A particularly problematic mode of argumentation is to reference a (real or supposed) authority without actually naming it. This is typically done by using phrases such as “experts say…” or “science has established that…”, etc.

These kind of anonymous authorities are especially widespread in advertising: There is hardly any toothpaste or dietary supplement that does not refer to some ominous “scientific” or “clinical studies", which are then usually not specified in more detail.

==== 2. False quotation ====

Just as important as the correct authority is the question of whether the quote is also correctly reproduced.

An all too large number of quotes that are supposed to come from historic celebrities such as Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln or Socrates are in fact completely fictitious.

We do not know whether Einstein actually ever said the above-mentioned quote – what is certain is that it is not originally from him: similar quotation actually circulated long before Einstein. In any case, it does not appear in any of Einstein’s publications or interviews. So one can assume that it is a //wrong quotation//. 

==== 3. Wrong context ====

But there is another aspect: even a correct quotation of a true authority can be falsely reproduced: without knowing the precise context, such a quotation can say exactly the opposite than what it was originally meant to say.

The aforementioned "Einstein quote" is ambiguous here: does "our intellectual capacity" mean the intellectual capabilities of individuals, or the capacity of a society as a whole to realize its intellectual potential? The statement is readily taken to support both meanings, but at least one of them is probably not what the author (whoever that was) had in mind.

<aside info>
<h3>“Quote magnets”</h3>

It is striking how many such //questionable// quotations are attributed time and time again to the same people. Apparently, these are associated with characteristics which seem to make such sayings appear particularly credible. To describe this effect, the term “quote magnet” has been coined.

Examples of such “quote magnets” are, besides [[wp>Albert Einstein|Albert Einstein]], for example [[wp>Winston Churchill|Winston Churchill]], [[wp>Friedrich Nietzsche|Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[wp>Socrates|Socrates]] or even [[wp>Sun Tzu|Sun Tzu]] [<span :zh-Hant>孫子</span>], and many other celebrities of the past or the present.

Especially if a saying seems to fit all too well with a stereotype associated with the respective person, it might be worth inquiring whether it is actually authentic. All too often it is not.
</aside>
===== Examples =====
==== Advertising ====

Appeals to //false authorities// are particularly popular in advertising: There is hardly a product or service that is not advertised with celebrities: Soccer coaches advertise car brands, news anchors recommend convenience foods, or athletes mobile phone contracts. 

In few of these cases there is actually any reason to believe the celebrities portrayed in advertising have any better knowledge of the quality of the advertised products above any random person. Nevertheless, the leap of faith we readily give to such people will still help sell the product.

==== Scientific studies ====

At first glance, it may seem counterintuitive to use “scientific studies” as a negative example here, as these are considered to be prime examples of trustworthy evidence for a position. The assumption is that such studies have been produced in accordance with the rules of good scientific practice and have been [[wp>Peer review|peer-reviewed]] by independent experts prior to publication. In short, science is an [[relevancy:authority:index|authority]]. It can be trusted almost blindly. 

In reality, it is not quite as simple: oftentimes these studies were based on very specific framework conditions, so that the findings can not simply be transfered to other, even similar, situations; or they have long since been refuted by other studies (science is constantly evolving!); or they actually deal with a completely different topic, which only seems relevant in the respective context at first glance, etc.

Moreover, precisely //because// science enjoys a good reputation (and in most cases deservedly so!), the temptation can be high to lean on this good reputation and publish “studies” which, although they mimic the outside appearance of scientific work, do not really recognise its methods and do not produce any useful results.

Unfortunately, this is by no means a marginal phenomenon. Even in respected publications, there appear time and again publications that, on closer inspection, turn out to be erroneous or even clearly falsified. In certain magazines or even entire fields of research, this has become the rule rather than the exception (See also: <span maniculus "more information on this topic:">[[glossary:cargo_cult#cargo-cult_science|Cargo Cult Science]]</span>).

So to really be able to judge whether a particular study is really relevant to the discussion in question, one has to be an expert in the field in question. Most of us probably aren’t – and a reference to an authority whose [[relevancy:index|relevance]] one can’t really assess should first of all be taken as a warning sign of possible [[glossary:bullshit|bullshit]].

Of course, this is not a basis on which one could reject scientific studies with results that one does not like. It is, however, an indication of a possibly unfair discussion tactic (for example, it might be a <span maniculus "see also:">[[rhetoric:gish-galopp#study_gallop|“study gallop”]]</span>).

==== Quotes ====

Especially on the social media, all kinds of "quotes" are circulating, which are attributed to (mostly long-dead) celebrities – such as the above-mentioned alleged Einstein quote. These are brought out again and again, in order to support a position whichever way. The fewest of them stand up to a closer inspection. So also the following one:

{{ relevancy:authority:einstein_quote.png?nolink&600 |“Most of the quotes attributed to me that you find on the Internet are actually fake!” – Albert Einstein}}

<aside important print-wide>
**Note:** As a means of political disinformation, there are also repeated attempts to pin alleged quotes on political opponents, which are intended to show them in a bad light.

Particularly in the case of sensitive political or social topics, one should therefore be especially careful and thoroughly check whether a quote can really be substantiated in this form or whether a statement has possibly been taken out of context.

This danger of falling for such “[[rhetoric:unfair_discussion_tactics:confusion_tactics:alternative_facts|alternative facts]]” is particularly great in situations in which people tend to deal with information rather uncritically. This includes, among other things, information that we receive from friends and relatives (e.g., via social media), and especially information that seems to confirm an already existing narrative and/or one's own existing opinion (<span maniculus "see:">[[psychology/cognitive_biases:confirmation|confirmation bias]]</span>).

At the very least, one should avoid further sharing dubious quotes and thus possibly contributing to the spread of false information. 
</aside>

===== See also =====

  * [[relevancy:authority:index|Appeal to authority]]

===== More information =====

  * [[https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/231/Argument-from-False-Authority|Argument from False Authority]] on //Logically Fallacious//