[EpicEng]

>Can you call it that though? >One is a person with a well-earned a reputation, the other.. well you get the point.

Yes

>An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion

You're not defending the point logically; you're only supporting argument is that someone with a good reputation supports it as well.

[kryogen1c]

> You're not defending the point logically;

He absolutely is

The annoying thing about "logical fallacies" is that if anyone season argument they disagree with that resembles a "fallacy", that quote it and act like theyve won.

He is not saying that everything Benjamin Franklin has ever said is true. Obviously. However, if a well renowned and respected Authority has an opinion that some evil schmuck disagrees with, it provides evidence as to who is more likely to be correct. That's not what an appeal to Authority is

[EpicEng]

>He absolutely is

Show me where that happened.

>The annoying thing about "logical fallacies" is that if anyone season argument they disagree with that resembles a "fallacy", that quote it and act like theyve won.

That is annoying and I agree, but that's not what's going on here.

>He is not saying that everything Benjamin Franklin has ever said is true.

No one said he was.

>However, if a well renowned and respected Authority has an opinion that some evil schmuck disagrees with, it provides evidence as to who is more likely to be correct.

No it doesn't. It absolutely _does not_. Reputation isn't irrelevant in so far as it lends credibility to a person's statements, but the discussion doesn't stop there. If you're going to defend a quote then defend it. Saying "this is true because X is trustworthy and Y is an 'evil schmuck'" is not an argument.

If this is not a prime example of Appeal to Authority then show me why it's not and provide an example. You're just throwing out your opinions as if they were fact.

[tbirrell]

This is not an example of Appeal to Authority because Ben Franklin is an accepted authority. If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it becomes a valid inductive argument. Otherwise every Citation or Source or Bibliography would be a "logical fallacy". An Appeal to Authority would be if the quote was attributed to someone like James Polk. Sure he was president, but he has no authority on this sort of subject.

[EpicEng]

>This is not an example of Appeal to Authority because Ben Franklin is an accepted authority.

...huh?

>If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it becomes a valid inductive argument.

No, it doesn't. Why do you believe that? How do you feel about quantum mechanics? Do you realize that Einstein fought tooth and nail against it for years?

>Otherwise every Citation or Source or Bibliography would be a "logical fallacy".

Citations link to works, not authorities. A citation may link to, say, an academic paper which provides evidence to support its assertions. No one is linking to random comments made by so-called authorities, that would never be accepted (unless the citation was to literally show that a quote is legitimate, i.e., made by the person claimed to have made it.)

[anbop]

But given a hypothetical question like “What play should a football team run when they are on 2nd down and 3 with 2:19 in the 3rd Quarter while leading by 3 points” — wouldn’t a professional NFL coach’s opinion be given more credence than mine? Einstein may have been wrong on quantum mechanics but if you had 1000 physics question it would be hard to think of a better person to ask.

[EpicEng]

You're proving my point. When examining an argument you should do so based on the merits of said argument. That's literally the basis of Appeal to Authority. It doesn't get more clear cut than this.

I'd also like to point out you have yet to provide a single fact in support of anything you're saying.

[kryogen1c]

>Saying "this is true because X is trustworthy and Y is an 'evil schmuck'" is not an argument

Great! I didnt say that and neither did the gp you originally replied to. Whats your point?

[EpicEng]

>However, if a well renowned and respected Authority has an opinion that some evil schmuck disagrees with, it provides evidence as to who is more likely to be correct.

That's you as you seem to have forgotten.

[kryogen1c]

Providing evidence towards the likelihood of truth, as I said, and saying "this is true because X is trustworthy and Y is an 'evil schmuck'", as you said, are not equivalent.

Are you actually trying to argue you can't tell the opinion of children and subject matter experts apart because gathering evidence based on reputation is a logical fallacy?