Redigerer Autoritetsargument

'''Autoritetsargument''' ([[latin]]: '''''argumentum ad verecundiam''''') også '''appellere til autoritet''' er en vanlig form for argument som leder til en [[tankefeil]] (logisk feilslutning) når brukt i en logisk eller vitenskapelig argumentasjon.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Gass|first1=Robert|title=Common Fallacies in Reasoning|url=http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm|publisher=California State University Fullerton|accessdate=13. august 2015|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150709173537/http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm|url-status=dead}} {{Kilde www |url=http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm |tittel=Arkivert kopi |besøksdato=2016-01-03 |arkiv-dato=2015-07-09 |arkiv-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150709173537/http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm |url-status=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Umpleby|first1=Stuart|title=The science of cybernetics and the cybernetics of science|journal=Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal|date=1990|url=http://www.nomads.usp.br/pesquisas/design/objetos_interativos/arquivos/restrito/umpleby_science_cybernetics.pdf}}</ref>

I uformell argumentasjon er å [[appell]]ere til autoritet en form for argument som forsøker å etablere en [[statistisk syllogisme]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Boyd|first1=Robert|title=Argument Analysis and Critical Thinking|journal=Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving|date=1993|page=55|url=http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/879162}}</ref> Å appellere til autoritet er avhengig av et argument på formen:<ref>{{cite book|last1=Gootendorst|first1=Rob|title=Some Fallacies about Fallacies|publisher=Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline|page=388}}</ref>
:
: ''A'' er en autoritet på et bestemt område
: ''A'' sier noe om det området
: ''A'' har antagelig rett

Feilaktige eksempler på bruk av appell til autoritet inkluderer bruk i sammenheng med [[logisk]]-resonnement, og appellere til posisjonen til en autoritet eller autoriteter for å tilbakevise bevis,<ref name="Bex">{{cite journal| last1=F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed| title=Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations| journal=Artificial Intelligence and Law| date=2003| page=133| url=http://150.162.138.5/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/6487-6486-1-PB.pdf| accessdate=2016-01-03| archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305002317/http://150.162.138.5/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/6487-6486-1-PB.pdf| url-status=dead}} {{Kilde www |url=http://150.162.138.5/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/6487-6486-1-PB.pdf |tittel=Arkivert kopi |besøksdato=2016-01-03 |arkiv-dato=2016-03-05 |arkiv-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305002317/http://150.162.138.5/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/6487-6486-1-PB.pdf |url-status=yes }}</ref>{{sfn|Baronett|2008|p=304}}{{sfn|Walton|2008|p=89}} da autoriteter kan gjøre feilaktige bedømmelser ved feil, bias, uærlighet eller falle for [[gruppetenkning]].<ref>{{cite AV media |people= Easton, Matt |date= 2015-07-09 |title= Don't trust historians! or English archers... |url= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEfCVujdfXU |publisher= Schola Gladiatoria |ref= Easton_Archers}}</ref> Dermed er å appellere til en autoritet ikke et troverdig argument for å stadfeste fakta, da sannhet eller løgn, eller rimelighet eller urimelighet av en tro, er uavhengig av de som godtar eller avviser den.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Carroll|first1=Robert|title=Appeal to Authority|url=http://www.http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html|website=The Skeptic's Dictionary|ref=skepdic|accessdate=2019-04-12|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519173408/http://http/|url-status=dead}} {{Kilde www |url=http://www.http/ |tittel=Arkivert kopi |besøksdato=2021-02-12 |arkiv-dato=2018-09-12 |arkiv-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180912072355/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8490524.stm |url-status=unfit }}</ref>
<!-- Uoversatt
== Forms ==

===General===
The argument from authority can take several forms. As a syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:{{sfn|Baronett|2008|p=306}}
:''A'' says ''P'' about subject matter ''S''.
:''A'' should be trusted about subject matter ''S''.
:Therefore, ''P'' is correct.

The second premise is not accepted as valid, as it amounts to an [[ipse dixit|unfounded assertion]] that leads to circular reasoning able to define person or group A into inerrancy on any subject matter.<ref name="Gensler">{{cite book|last=Gensler |first=Harry J. |title=Introduction to Logic |publisher=Routedge |location=New York, NY |year=2003 |pages=333–4}}</ref>{{sfn|Baronett|2008|p=305}}

One real world example of this [[tautology (rhetoric)|tautological]] inerrancy is how [[Ignaz Semmelweis]]' evidence that [[puerperal fever]] was caused by a contagious agent, as opposed to the then-accepted view that it was caused mainly by environmental factors,<ref name="Sem_enigma" /> was [[#Cause_and_treatment_of_puerperal_infections|dismissed largely based on appeals to authority]]. Multiple critics stated that they did not accept the claims in part because of the fact that in all the [[academic literature]] on puerperal fever there was nothing that supported the view Semmelweis was advancing.<ref name="Holmes_study" /> They were thus effectively using the [[circular reasoning|circular argument]] that "the literature is not in error, therefore the literature is not in error".<ref name="circular_Sem-not-so-wise">{{cite journal| last1=Scholl| first1=Raphael| title=Causal inference, mechanisms, and the Semmelweis case.| journal=Studies in History and Philosophy of Science| date=2013|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368112000350}}</ref>

=== Dismissal of evidence ===
The equally fallacious counter-argument from authority takes the form:{{sfn|Walton|2008|p=91}}
:''B'' has provided evidence for position ''T''.
:''A'' says position ''T'' is incorrect.
:Therefore, ''B''<Nowiki>'</Nowiki>s evidence is false.

This form is fallacious as it does not actually refute the evidence given by B, it merely notes that there is disagreement with position T.{{sfn|Walton|2008|p=91}} This form is especially unsound when there is no indication that A is aware of the evidence given by B.{{sfn|Walton|2008|p=92}}

=== Appeal to non-authorities ===
Fallacious arguments from authority can also be the result of citing a non-authority as an authority.<ref name="Gensler" /> These arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. The [[appeal to poverty]] for example is the fallacy of thinking a conclusion is probably correct because the one who holds or is presenting it is poor.<ref>{{cite journal| last1=Silverman| first1=Henry| title=Principles of Trust or Propaganda?| journal=Journal of Applied Business Research|date=2011}}</ref> When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is a fallacious ''appeal to the common man''.{{sfn|Baronett|2008|p=304}}<ref>See generally Irving M. Copi (1986). ''Introduction to Logic'' (7th ed.). Macmillan Publishing Company. pp. 98–99.</ref><ref name="Common_man_ref">{{cite web|last1=Bennett|first1=B.|title=Appeal to the Common Man|url=http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/24-appeal-to-common-folk|website=Logically Fallacious}}</ref>

However, it is also a fallacious ''[[ad hominem]]'' argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Walton|first1=D. N.|title=Reasoned use of expertise in argumentation| journal=Argumentation| date=1989| volume=3| issue=1| page=69| url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00116417}}</ref> As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Van Eemeren|first1=Frans|last2=Grootendorst|first2=Rob|title=Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.|url=https://archive.org/details/sim_argumentation_1987_1_3/page/283| journal=Argumentation| date=1987| volume=1| issue=3| pages=283–301| doi=10.1007/bf00136779}}</ref>

===Use in logic===
It is fallacious to use any appeal to authority in the context of logical reasoning. Because the argument from authority is not a logical argument in that it does not argue something's negation or affirmation constitutes a contradiction, it is fallacious to assert that the conclusion ''must'' be true.<ref name="Gensler" /> Such a determinative assertion is a [[Non sequitur (logic)|logical ''non sequitur'']] as the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Foster |editor1-first=Marguerite H. |editor2-last=Martin |editor2-first=Michael L. |title=Probability, Confirmation, and Simplicity: Readings in the Philosophy of Inductive Logic |year=1966 |publisher=Odyssey Press}}{{page needed|date=januar 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite book| author=Peirce, Charles Sanders |year=1883 |origyear=Digitized Jun 15, 2007 |title=Studies in logic. By members of the Johns Hopkins university |publisher=Little, Brown |isbn=978-1-236-07583-3|display-authors=etal}}{{page needed|date=january 2014}} {{link note|note=[http://books.google.com/books?id=V7oIAAAAQAAJ available as a free google eBook]}}</ref>

The only exception to this would be an authority which is [[Logical necessity|logically required]] to always be correct, such as an [[omniscient]] being that does not lie.<ref name="Bex">{{cite journal|last1=F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed| title=Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations| journal=Artificial Intelligence and Law| date=2003| page=133| url=http://150.162.138.5/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/6487-6486-1-PB.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Wierenga|first1=Edward|title=Omniscience|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/#DefOmn|website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy| publisher=Stanford University}}</ref>

== Notable examples ==

===Inaccurate chromosome number===
In 1923, leading American zoologist [[Theophilus Painter]] declared based on his findings that humans had 24 pairs of [[chromosomes]]. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter's authority,<ref>{{Citation |last= O'Connor|first= Clare|year= 2008|title= Human Chromosome Number|publisher= Nature|url= http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Human-Chromosome-Number-294|accessdate= 2014-04-24}}</ref> despite subsequent counts totaling the [[Chromosome#Human chromosomes|correct number]] of 23.<ref name="Matthews 2011">{{Citation |last= Matthews |first= Robert |year= 2011|title= The bizarre case of the chromosome that never was |publisher= Fortune City|url= http://web.archive.org/web/20110514011452/http:/www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/cromsome.html |accessdate= 2011-05-14}}</ref> Even textbooks with photos clearly showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24 based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.<ref name="Matthews 2011"/>

As [[Robert Matthews (scientist)|Robert Matthews]] said of the event, "Scientists had preferred to bow to authority rather than believe the evidence of their own eyes".<ref name="Matthews 2011"/> As such, their reasoning was an appeal to authority.<ref name="Grootendorst">{{Citation |last= Grootendorst|first= Robert|year= 1992|title= Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective|page= 158|url= http://books.google.com/books?id=OFv5p3coL9sC&dq=Argumentation,+Communication+and+Fallacies:+A+Pragma-Dialectical+Perspective&hl=en&sa=X&ei=27NWU_-IHcqiyATi-4GYBA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA}}</ref>

===The tongue map===
Another example is that of the [[tongue map]], which purported to show different areas of taste on the tongue. While it originated from a misreading of the original text, it got taken up in [[textbooks]] and the scientific literature<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/science/no-clear-cut-taste-map-of-the-tongue.html?_r=0 nytimes.com]</ref> for nearly a century, and remained even after being shown to be wrong in the 1970s<ref>{{cite web| last1=Midura| first1=Margaretta| title=On the Road to Sweetness: A Clear-Cut Destination?| url=http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/11/on-the-road-to-sweetness-a-clear-cut-destination/|website=Yale Scientific Magazine}}</ref><ref>http://www.livescience.com/7113-tongue-map-tasteless-myth-debunked.html</ref> and despite being easily disproven on one's own tongue.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/health/11real.html</ref><ref>http://www.aromadictionary.com/articles/tonguemap_article.html</ref>

=== Cause and treatment of puerperal infections ===
In the mid-to-late 19th century a small minority of doctors, most notably [[Ignaz Semmelweis]], argued that [[puerperal fever]]s were caused by an infection or toxin<ref name="Toxin_cite">{{cite web|last1=Sutton|first1=Mike|title=Mythbusted: Why the Semmelweis story is both myth and supermyth|url=https://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/biology_and_nature/bacteriology/expert-skeptics-suckered-again-incredibly-the-famous-semmelweis-story-is-another-supermyth| website=BestThinking| accessdate=2015-05-05}}</ref> the spread of which was preventable by [[aseptic technique]] by physicians such as [[Hand washing#Medical use|hand washing]] with chlorine.<ref name="Holmes_study">{{cite journal| last1=Carter| first1=Codell| title=Semmelweis and his predecessors|journal=Medical History| date=1981| url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1138986/pdf/medhist00092-0065.pdf}}</ref> [[contemporary reaction to Ignaz Semmelweis|This view was largely discounted]] because, as one 1843 paper noted, "writers of authority...profess a disbelief in [such a] [[Contagious disease|contagion]]", and instead held that puerperal fevers were [[environmental disease|caused by environmental factors]] which would render such techniques irrelevant.<ref name="Holmes_study" />

This was in spite of evidence against their proposed explanations, such as Semmelweis' observations that two side-by-side clinics had radically different rates of [[puerperal infection]], that puerperal infection was extremely rare in [[Home birth|births that took place outside of hospitals]], and that infection rates were unrelated to weather or seasonal variations, all of which went against the prevailing explanation of environmental causes such as [[Miasma theory|miasma]].<ref name="Sem_enigma">{{cite journal| last1=Nuland| first1=Sherwin| title=The enigma of Semmelweis—an interpretation.| journal=Nuland, S. B. (1979). The enigma of Semmelweis—an interpretation. Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences| date=30. januar 1979| pages=259–260| url=https://philoscience.unibe.ch/oldsite-static/documents/unibe-intern/EK-Methodik12/Nuland1979.pdf}}</ref> However, those who presented this evidence found themselves "fighting against hospital authorities".<ref name="Vickers">{{cite book| last1=Vickers|first1=Rebecca|title=Medicine|date=2010-09-01| publisher=Heinemann-Raintree Library| isbn=1410939081| page=36| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F2EfyMAw51wC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref>

It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of women's lives would have been saved if the contagious disease explanation had been accepted when the evidence was presented.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Schwarz|first1=Henry|title=Transactions of the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Volume 23| date=1910| pages=182–183| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Lvc1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182| ref=obst_journal}}</ref>

== Psychological basis ==
An integral part of the appeal to authority is the [[cognitive bias]] known as the [[Asch effect]].<ref name="Grootendorst" /> In repeated and modified instances of the [[Asch conformity experiments]], it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.<ref>{{Citation |last= McLeod| first= Samuel| year= 2008| title= Asch Experiment| publisher= Simply Psychology|url= http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html}}</ref>

Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers found that "Participants reported considerable [[Stress (psychological)|distress]] under the group pressure", with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.<ref>{{Citation |last= Webley| first= Paul| title= A partial and non-evaluative history of the Asch effect| publisher= |publication-place= University of Exeter|url= http://people.exeter.ac.uk/PWebley/psy1002/asch.html|}}</ref>

Scholars have noted that the academic environment produces a nearly ideal situation for these processes to take hold, and they can affect entire academic disciplines, giving rise to [[groupthink]]. One paper about the philosophy of mathematics for example notes that, within mathematics, <blockquote>"If...a person accepts our discipline, and goes through two or three years of [[graduate study]] in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking, and is no longer the critical outsider he once was. In the same way [that] a critic of Scientology who underwent several years of 'study' under 'recognized authorities' in [[Scientology]] might well emerge a believer instead of a critic. If the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit." <ref name="The_Ideal_Mathematician">{{cite book|last1=David|first1=Phillip J.|last2=Hersh|first2=Reuben|title=New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics|date=1998|publisher=Princeton University Press|page=8|url=http://users-cs.au.dk/danvy/the-ideal-mathematician.pdf}}</ref></blockquote>

Uoversatt -->
== Se også ==
*''[[Ipse dixit]]''
*[[Uformel feilslutning]]
*[[Name-dropping]]
*[[Manifesto of the Ninety-Three]]
*[[Woozle-effekt]]

== Referanser ==
<references>
</references>

== Kilder ==
* {{cite book|last=Baronett |first=Stan |title=Logic |url=https://archive.org/details/logic0000baro |publisher=Pearson Prentice Hall |location=Upper Saddle River, NJ |year=2008}}
* {{cite book|last=Walton |first=Douglas |title=Informal Logic |url=https://archive.org/details/informallogicpra0000walt |year=2008 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=London |isbn=0-521-71380-3}}

==Eksterne lenker==
* {{wikiquote}}

{{Relevansetankefeil}}
{{Propaganda}}

{{Autoritetsdata}}

[[Kategori:Tankefeil]]
[[Kategori:Relevansetankefeil]]