Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority is arguing that an idea is true (or likely true) because a person of authority says so. "Einstein believed it, so it must be right" is the form.

CF rejects appeals to authority

• Content-based judgment is the CF alternative. Judge the idea, not the source.
• Fallibilism is universal. No authority is infallible.
• authoritarianism is the political version; epistemic appeals to authority are its parent.
• The history is bad. Many "authoritative" claims have been wrong.

What CF allows

• "X is an expert in this area" — descriptive, not an argument.
• "X has written extensively on this" — invites you to read the content.
• "X argues Y, here's the argument" — argument by content, with attribution.

Common appeals

• "Most scientists agree."
• "The Nobel committee said."
• "The Pope declared."
• "The textbook says."
• "The senior professor said."

All should be replaced with the actual reasoning.

Why CF is so explicit

CF holds that appeals to authority are the default mode of most discourse. People defer to credentials because it's easier than reasoning. CF insists on content-based-judgment because:

• It enables Paths Forward.: Anyone can contribute.
• It reduces bias.: You're evaluating content.
• It democratises knowledge.: Ideas compete on merit.

"Peer Review and Appeals to Authority" is a CF essay title. — criticalfallibilism.com