I always thought that it meant: just because someone has authority over one subject, doesn’t mean they have it for another. Just because Einstein is good at math and physics doesn’t mean his quotes about philosophy and religion hold any authority.
I always thought that it meant: just because someone has authority over one subject, doesn’t mean they have it for another.
That can be part of it, but the definitional aspect of the fallacy is attempting to irrationally utilize it to define logical proof.
As in it wouldn’t be rational to utilize Einstein as an expert to prove something in religion.
However, you could still have a logical fallacy if you tried to appeal to authority/expert in their own field if utilizing their testimony is itself irrational.
For example any attempt to use personal testimony as evidence in the scientific method is an appeal to authority. For example It doesn’t matter what Einstein’s testimony is about physics, as personal testimony doesn’t fit within the scientific process. Utilizing someone’s personal testimony isn’t going to counter an observable phenomenon, or help anyone reproduce an experiment.
On the flip side, expert witness testimony can be used to bolster the body of evidence when it comes to the metaphysical. For example, it’s perfectly rational for a person who studies Nazi to list their experience when interpreting if something is a Nazi salute. As the only way to determine a Nazi salute from another movement is knowing the contextual history of the Nazi movement.
No, it is just about the authority being used as the proof. It can be someone who is an expert on the subject (or not). See the example used in the Wikipedia article:
One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[31] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[32][33] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[34] scientists propagated this “fact” based on Painter’s authority,[35][36][33] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.
Einstein is an expert at math and physics but him being an expert doesn’t make something true in itself and we shouldn’t trust the claims etc. just because of his status. But if he makes a claim, it for sure has more merit than claim from someone not as authoritative on the subject.
I always thought that it meant: just because someone has authority over one subject, doesn’t mean they have it for another. Just because Einstein is good at math and physics doesn’t mean his quotes about philosophy and religion hold any authority.
That can be part of it, but the definitional aspect of the fallacy is attempting to irrationally utilize it to define logical proof.
As in it wouldn’t be rational to utilize Einstein as an expert to prove something in religion.
However, you could still have a logical fallacy if you tried to appeal to authority/expert in their own field if utilizing their testimony is itself irrational.
For example any attempt to use personal testimony as evidence in the scientific method is an appeal to authority. For example It doesn’t matter what Einstein’s testimony is about physics, as personal testimony doesn’t fit within the scientific process. Utilizing someone’s personal testimony isn’t going to counter an observable phenomenon, or help anyone reproduce an experiment.
On the flip side, expert witness testimony can be used to bolster the body of evidence when it comes to the metaphysical. For example, it’s perfectly rational for a person who studies Nazi to list their experience when interpreting if something is a Nazi salute. As the only way to determine a Nazi salute from another movement is knowing the contextual history of the Nazi movement.
No, it is just about the authority being used as the proof. It can be someone who is an expert on the subject (or not). See the example used in the Wikipedia article:
Einstein is an expert at math and physics but him being an expert doesn’t make something true in itself and we shouldn’t trust the claims etc. just because of his status. But if he makes a claim, it for sure has more merit than claim from someone not as authoritative on the subject.