[teachrdan]

It's a bit funny because Appeal to Authority isn't a fallacy. The actual fallacy is Appeal to Incorrect / False Authority:

"An appeal to false authority is a fallacious argument that relies on the statements of a false authority figure, who is framed as a credible authority on the topic being discussed."

https://effectiviology.com/false-authority/#:~:text=An%20app....

[eivarv]

Does it actually matter?

An argument doesn't get any more or less fallacious based on who believes in it (the authority, in this case) – that's not an argument in itself.

It might be reasonable (a useful heuristic) to lean to the side of the expert, but the fact that an expert believes something doesn't in itself make the conclusion correct.

[teachrdan]

To the contrary, if someone is a correct authority, their statements have more weight on their domain of expertise. While all of us on HN are very clever and could think of a number of exceptions, I would trust a climate scientist as a legitimate authority on climate change over a religious leader or a PR person.

[eivarv]

I too would trust a climate scientist as a legitimate authority on climate change over a religious leader or a PR person – but that's not what I'm discussing.

I'm saying global warming isn't true because scientists believe it to be true (this would be a fallacious argument).

[entropicdrifter]

That would be a fallacious argument because it does not follow (non-sequitur) that the beliefs of scientists can cause shifts in reality, but nobody was arguing that.

They were arguing that it is logical to conclude that climate change is real because the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists (the actual domain experts) is that it is real.

[eivarv]

That's not an argument that deals with whether climate change is real or not – but whether it's reasonable to believe it is, based on one's own lack of understanding in combination with making (reasonable) assumptions.

[entropicdrifter]

It is an argument that the consensus of the overwhelming majority of experts on any given subject with such a consensus is strong evidence for that position.

[nostromo]

> The actual fallacy

... according to linguistics researcher with a website. He sounds like as much a false authority on philosophy as anyone else.

[entropicdrifter]

From the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

9. The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them. (See also 2.4 below.)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

[tomcatfish]

The point the parent was making is that citing authority isn't a bad thing to do. Citing authorities in _a different field_ often is, though.

(Citing a doctor on the common cold is not a fallacy, but citing a doctor on global economics is)

[nostromo]

And in doing so they cited a linguist about philosophy.

And it doesn’t matter anyway - thankfully we use science now and not philosophy to determine truth.