Argument Basics

Copyright 2022 by Dr. Michael LaBossiere

Argument Basics premises are intended to provide complete
support for the conclusion.
While people have a general idea of what
A third “type” of argument is a fallacy. A
“argument” means, the term does have a
fallacy is an argument in which the premises fail
technical meaning in the context of philosophy
to provide adequate support for the conclusion.
that is well worth considering.
There are inductive fallacies and deductive
fallacies.
“Argument” Defined
While people generally think of an argument
as a fight, perhaps involving the hurling of small Examples of Arguments
appliances, this is not the case-at least as the
term is used in philosophy. In philosophy, an An Inductive Argument
argument is a set of claims, one of which is Premise 1: Most Siberian huskies enjoy running.
supposed to be supported by the others. There Premise 2: Isis is a Siberian husky.
are two types of claims in an argument. The first Conclusion: Isis enjoys running.
type of claim is the conclusion. This is the claim
that is supposed to be supported by the A Deductive Argument
premises. A single argument has one and only Premise 1: If pornography has a detrimental
one conclusion, although the conclusion of one effect on one’s character, it would be best to
argument can be used as a premise in another avoid it.
argument (thus forming an extended argument). Premise 2: Pornography has a detrimental effect
To find a conclusion, ask “what is the point?” If on one’s character.
there is no point being made, then there is no Conclusion: It would be best to avoid
argument. If a point is being made, then there pornography.
can be an argument.
The second type of claim is the premise. A An Extended Deductive Argument
premise is a claim given as evidence or a reason
for accepting the conclusion. Aside from Argument1, Premise 1: If pornography has a
practical concerns, there is no limit to the detrimental effect on one’s character, it would be
number of premises in a single argument. To best to regard it as harmful.
find a premise ask, “what evidence or reasons Argument 1, Premise 2: Pornography has a
are given for the point being made?” If there is detrimental effect on one’s character.
no evidence or reason being offered, then there Argument 1, Conclusion: It would be best to
is no argument. regard pornography as harmful.
As such, to make an argument requires Argument 2, Premise 1: If it is best to regard
making a point (conclusion) and backing it up something as harmful, then the government
with evidence or reasons (premises). should protect people from it.
Argument 2, Premise 2: It would be best to
Varieties regard pornography as harmful.
There are two main categories of arguments Argument 2, Conclusion: The government
(three if bad arguments are considered a should protect people from pornography.
category). The first type is the inductive
argument. An inductive argument is an A Fallacy (Circumstantial ad hominem)
argument in which the premises are intended to Premise 1: Dave supports the tax reduction for
provide some degree of support but less than businesses and says it will be good for everyone,
complete support for the conclusion. but he owns a business.
The second type is the deductive argument. A Conclusion: Dave must be wrong about the tax
deductive argument is an argument in which the reduction.
 then the conclusion must be true. An invalid
General Assessment argument is such that all the premises could be
Just like almost everything else, arguments are true and the conclusion false at the same time.
subject to assessment. When creating an Validity is tested by formal means, such as truth
argument, the usual goal is to make a good one. tables, Venn diagrams and proofs. If an
When assessing an argument, the goal is to argument is valid and has all true premises, then
determine whether it is good or not. it is sound. Naturally, a sound deductive
When assessing any argument there are two argument also has a true conclusion. If a
main factors to consider: the quality of the deductive argument is invalid, has one or more
premises and the quality of the reasoning. false premises (or both) it is unsound.
While people often blend the two together, the While deductive arguments are assessed in
quality of the reasoning is quite distinct from the strict “black and white” terms (valid or invalid,
quality of the premises. Just as it is possible to sound or unsound), inductive arguments are
build poorly using excellent materials, it is assessed in terms of varying degrees of strength.
possible to reason badly using good premises. A strong inductive argument is an argument
Also, just as it is possible for a skilled builder to such that if the premises are true, then the
assemble crappy material with great skill, it is conclusion is likely to be true. A weak inductive
possible to reason well using poor premises. As argument is an argument such that even if the
another analogy, consider a check book. Doing premises are true, the conclusion is not likely to
the math is the same thing as reasoning. The be true. There are various degrees of strength
math can be done correctly (good reasoning) but and weakness which express a somewhat
the information entered for the checks (the subjective opinion of how well the argument’s
premises) can be mistaken (for example, premises logically support the conclusion. Such
entering $5.00 instead of $50). It is also possible assessments are based on the standards for
to enter all the checks correctly, but for there to assessing the specific type of argument and the
be errors in the mathematics. better the argument succeeds at meeting the
standards, the stronger the argument. The worse
Reasoning it fails, the weaker the argument. A strong
When assessing the quality of reasoning, the inductive argument with true premises is often
question to ask is: Do the premises logically called cogent.
support the conclusion? If the premises do not
logically support the conclusion, then the Premises
argument is flawed, and the conclusion should When assessing the quality of the premises,
not be accepted based on the premises provided. the question to ask is: are the premises true (or
The conclusion may, in fact, be true, but a at least plausible)? While the testing of premises
flawed argument gives you no logical reason to can be a rather extensive matter, it is reasonable
believe the conclusion because of the argument to accept a premise as plausible if it meets three
in question. Hence, it would be a mistake to conditions. First, the premise is consistent with
accept it for those reasons. If the premises do your own observations. Second, the premise is
logically support the conclusion, then you consistent with your background beliefs and
would have a good reason to accept the experience. Third, the premise is consistent with
conclusion, on the assumption that the premises credible sources, such as experts, standard
are true or at least plausible. references and textbooks. It should be noted that
The way the reasoning is assessed depends on thoroughly and rigorously examining premises
whether the argument is deductive or inductive. generally involves going far beyond the three
If the argument is deductive, it is assessed in basic standards presented here.
terms of being valid or invalid. A valid
argument is such that if the premises were true
Good and Bad Faith Arguing principle of charity. Following this principle
Philosophical argumentation aims at requires interpreting claims in the best possible
establishing the truth of a claim. The goal of light and reconstructing (or constructing)
persuasion is to get the audience to believe a arguments to make them as strong as possible.
claim whether it is true or false. Philosophical There are three reasons to follow the principle.
argumentation requires that one argues in good The first is that the use of this principle is the right
faith; persuasion does not. This is not to say that thing to do. The second is that doing so helps
persuasive techniques are forbidden when avoid committing the straw person fallacy. In
arguing philosophically. You can and should use this context, this is a fallacy in which one presents
persuasive techniques to make your arguments a distorted or exaggerated version of an
more interesting, but you should not use them as argument and then takes criticism of that version
substitutes for arguments. to refute the real argument. The third is practical:
Arguing in good faith is not the same thing as criticism of the best and strongest version of an
making a good argument: a person could make a argument also addresses the lesser versions.
terrible argument or use false premises in good The principle of charity should be tempered by
faith. This is because arguing in good or bad faith the principle of plausibility. If you are
is primarily a matter of intention. That said, considering another person’s argument, then the
arguments made in bad faith will tend to be bad claims must be interpreted, and the argument
arguments. To use an analogy, a person can reconstructed in a way that matches what is
prepare a turkey in good faith with the intention known about the source and the context. For
of making it safe and delicious. But the turkey example, reconstructing an argument by
could turn out badly or could even give the Descartes and including premises from quantum
guests food poisoning. Preparing food in bad physics would violate the principle of
faith, to continue the analogy, would aim at plausibility. Now, on to arguing in bad faith.
deceiving guests about what they are really Arguing in bad faith is not the same thing as
eating or even aim at intentionally poisoning arguing badly, but it usually involves making
them. As the analogy suggests, just as you would bad arguments with dubious premises. As with
want to avoid bad faith cooks you would want to good faith, bad faith is a matter of intention.
avoid those who argue in bad faith. They will not When a person argues in bad faith, they intend to
be serving up anything you should consume. deceive and mislead when engaged in argument.
When a person argues in good faith, they A person can engage in bad faith arguing in
intend to argue that a claim is true by using good many ways.
logic and true (or at least plausible) evidence and One way to argue in bad faith is to knowingly
reasons. Arguing in good faith does not require use fallacies (errors in logic) to try to get the
that a person believes the claim they are arguing audience to accept a claim as true (or reject one as
for, but they do need to be honest about this. A false). To illustrate, a person arguing in bad faith
person can advance an argument they disagree might make a straw person (a distorted version)
with as part of a good faith discussion. For out of their opponent’s view or launch an ad
example, philosophical argumentation often Hominen attack against them to “refute” them.
includes considering objections against one’s Another way to argue in bad faith is to
position and these objections can (and should) be knowingly use persuasive devices (rhetoric) in
made in good faith. As another example, when a place of evidence and reasons to get the audience
philosophy presents the views of a philosopher to believe a claim. As noted above, you can use
they disagree with, they should present the persuasive devices in good faith when making an
arguments in good faith. argument. For example, a person skilled at both
When considering arguments against your argumentation and comedy might make a
view (be they objections you raise yourself or hilarious but good argument.
not), arguing in good faith means using the
 A third way to argue in bad faith is to use lies Example
as premises or the conclusion of an argument. If reality is just a dream, it should seem
This is different from unintentionally using claims incoherent.
that are not true—a person can make a false claim Reality does not seem incoherent.
and not be lying, since lying is a matter not just of Reality is not just a dream.
truth but also intention. A person can also make
a true claim and still be lying; this could occur Hypothetical Syllogism
because the person incorrectly believes the claim Form
is false and is trying to deceive the audience into Premise 1: If P, then Q.
accepting the claim as true. Premise 2: If Q, then R.
Like sorting out when someone is lying, Conclusion: If P, then R.
determining when someone is arguing in bad
faith can be challenging. A person who is arguing Example
in good faith might seem to be arguing in bad If cheating is wrong, then cheating in a class is
faith if they unintentionally use bad logic or make wrong.
false claims. Someone who is skilled at arguing in If cheating in a class is wrong, cheating on this
bad faith might be utterly convincing and seem test is wrong.
to be advancing incredible arguments. If cheating is wrong, then cheating on this test is
Fortunately, when assessing arguments and wrong.
claims you can cut through bad faith by focusing
on using the methods of logic and critical Disjunctive Syllogism
thinking to sort things out. Form
Premise 1: P V Q
Some Common Valid Deductive Premise 2: Not P
Conclusion: Q
Arguments
Example
Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent) Bill can lose weight through surgery or diet and
Form exercise.
Premise 1: If P, then Q Bill decided not to diet or exercise.
Premise 2: P Bill has decided to lose weight through surgery.
Conclusion: Q
Dilemma
Form 1
Example
Premise 1: If P, then Q
If killing in war is like murder, it is Premise 2: If R, then S
immoral. Premise 3: P or R
Killing in war is like murder. Conclusion: Q or S
Killing in war is immoral.
Form 2
Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent) Premise 1: If P, then Q
Form Premise 2: If R, then S
Premise 1: If P, then Q. Premise 3: Not Q or not S
Premise 2: Not Q. Conclusion: Not P or not R
Conclusion: Not P.
Form 3
Premise 1: If P, then Q.
Premise 2: If not P, then not Q.
Premise 3: P or not P. presenting a comparison is not the same thing as
Conclusion: Q or not Q. making an argument.
An analogical argument is an argument in
Example which one concludes that two things are alike in
If lying is wrong, then people should not lie. a certain respect because they are alike in other
If lying is not wrong, then it is okay for people respects.
to lie. As might be imagined, analogies are often
Lying is either wrong or it is not. used in ways other than in arguments. One
So people should not lie or it is acceptable. common non-argument use of analogies is to
explain something. These sorts of analogies are
Reductio Ad Absurdum (Reducing to often called explanatory comparisons or
Absurdity) explanatory analogies. For example, a person
Form #1 might attempt to explain the working of the
Premise 1: Assume that a claim, P, is true. heart in terms of a pump. Non-argumentative
Premise 2: Prove that this assumption leads to analogies are often also used for humorous
something false, absurd, or contradictory. purposes or in other artistic contexts.
Premise 3: Conclude that the claim that P is true Analogical arguments are extremely common.
is itself false. In addition to being used in everyday life, they
Conclusion: Conclude that P is false. are commonly used in law and medicine. For
example, when a lawyer argues from precedent,
Form #2 they are most likely using an analogical
Assume that a claim, P, is false. argument. Doctors also make extensive use of
Prove that this assumption leads to something analogical arguments. For example, they draw
false, absurd, or contradictory. analogies between what they observed in
Conclude that the claim that P is false is itself medical school and what they are observing in a
false. specific patient. For example, a doctor might
Conclude that P is true. reason that because this patient’s condition
closely resembles the case of poison ivy they
Example saw in medical school, the patient has been
1. Oppression is best defined as the exposed to poison ivy.
mistreatment of a minority by a majority.
2. In the case of sexism, a majority (women) is Form
mistreated by a minority (men). An analogy will typically have three premises
3. Therefore, sexism is not oppression. and a conclusion. The first premise two
4. This is absurd, so the definition is flawed. premises establish the analogy by showing that
the things (X and Y) in question are similar in
Inductive Arguments certain respects (properties P, Q, R, etc.). The
third premise establishes that X has an
additional quality, Z. The conclusion asserts that
Analogical Argument Y has property or feature Z as well. Although
An analogy is a comparison between two (or people generally present analogical arguments
more things). For example, if a person says in an informal manner, they have the following
“congress is like an really old car: it costs a lot of logical form:
money to keep going and it makes a lot of noise,
but really doesn’t get you anywhere fast”, then Premise 1: X has properties P,Q, and R.
she is making an analogy. Of course, merely Premise 2: Y has properties P,Q, and R.
Premise 3: X has property Z.
Conclusion: Y has property Z.
 Conclusion: Y is morally good (or morally
A more concise two premise version is also wrong).
common:
A more concise two premise version is also
Premise 1: X and Y have properties P,Q,R. common:
Premise 2: X has property Z.
Conclusion: Y has property Z. Premise 1: X and Y have properties P,Q,R.
Premise 2: X is morally good (or morally
X and Y are variables that stand for whatever wrong).
is being compared, such as chimpanzees and Conclusion: Y is morally good (or morally
humans or apples and oranges. P, Q, R, and are wrong).
also variables, but they stand for properties or
features that X and Y are known to possess, such
as having a heart. Z is also a variable and it Examples of Analogical Arguments
stands for the property or feature that X is
known to possess. The use of P, Q, and R is just Example #1
for the sake of the illustration-the things being Premise 1: Attacking your next-door neighbors,
compared might have many more properties in killing them, and taking their property is
common. morally wrong.
An example of an analogy presented in strict Premise 2: War involves going into a
form is as follows: neighboring country, killing people and taking
their property.
Premise 1: Rats are mammals and possess a Conclusion: So, war is morally wrong.
nervous system that includes a developed brain.
Premise 2: Humans are mammals possess a Example #2
nervous system that includes a developed brain. Premise 1: Animals and humans are both
Premise 3: When exposed to the neurotoxin capable of suffering and experiencing pain.
being tested, 90% of the rats died. Premise 2: Killing humans is morally wrong.
Conclusion: If exposed to the neurotoxin, 90% Conclusion: So, killing animals is morally
of all humans will die. wrong.

Moral Argument from Analogy Standards of Assessment

It is very easy to make a moral argument The strength of an analogical argument
using an argument from analogy. To argue that depends on three factors. To the degree that an
Y is morally wrong, find an X that is already analogical argument meets these standards it is
accepted as being wrong and show how Y is like a strong argument.
X. To argue that Y is morally good (or at least First, the more properties X and Y have in
morally acceptable), find an X that is already common, the better the argument. For example,
accepted as morally good (or at least morally in the example given above rats and humans
acceptable) and show how Y is like X. To be a bit have many properties in common. This standard
more formal, here is how the argument would is based on the commonsense notion that the
look: more two things are alike in other ways, the
more likely it is that they will be alike in some
Premise 1: X has properties P,Q, and R. other way. It should be noted that even if the
Premise 2: Y has properties P,Q, and R. two things are very much alike in many
Premise 3: X is morally good (or morally respects, there is still the possibility that they are
wrong). not alike regarding Z. This is why analogical
arguments are inductive.
 Second, the more relevant the shared this is to argue that there is a relevant difference
properties are to property Z, the stronger the (or differences) between humans and animals
argument. A specific property, for example P, is that weakens the analogy enough to make the
relevant to property Z if the presence or absence argument fail. As a specific example, the French
of P affects the likelihood that Z will be present. philosopher Descartes argued that humans have
Using the example, above, the shared properties minds and animals do not, thus (as he saw it)
are relevant. After all, since neurotoxins work killing a human is rather different from killing
on the nervous system, the presence of a an animal.
nervous system makes it more likely that The premises can, of course, also be
something will be killed by such agents. It questioned. In this example, it could be argued
should be kept in mind that it is possible for X that killing humans is not morally wrong and
and Y to share relevant properties while Y does this would undercut the support for the
not actually have property Z. Again, this is part conclusion.
of the reason why analogical arguments are Such responses can be responded to in turn, so
inductive. that a dispute over an argument from analogy
Third, it must be determined whether X and Y might go through many rounds of response and
have relevant dissimilarities as well as counter response. For example, if someone
similarities. The more dissimilarities and the presents an argument supporting the claim that
more relevant they are, the weaker the killing humans is not wrong, the defender of the
argument. In the example above, humans and analogy could counter with an argument aimed
rats do have dissimilarities, but most of them are at showing that killing humans is morally
probably not particularly relevant to the effects wrong.
of neurotoxins. However, it would be worth
considering that the size difference might be Argument from/by Example
relevant and thus a difference worth
considering.
Introduction
Not surprisingly, an argument by example is
Responding to an Argument from Analogy
an argument in which a claim is supported by
When arguing against an argument by
analogy, the overall goal is to show that the two providing examples.
While they are used in academic contexts
things being compared are not enough alike to
justify the conclusion. To be more specific, this is quite often, arguments by example are also
commonly used in “real life.” For example,
done by showing that the argument in question
fails to adequately meet the standards for suppose someone wants to show that another
person always mooches pizza without offering
assessing an argument from analogy. Naturally,
to help pay for it. The case could be made by
an argument from analogy can also be criticized
by calling the premises into question. listing examples in which the “pizza mooch” ate
pizza but did not contribute any money.
For example, consider the second example
given above. In this argument it is claimed that
Strict Form
humans and animals are both capable of
suffering and experiencing pain. Given that Strictly presented, an analogy will have at
killing humans is morally wrong, it would seem least one premise and a conclusion. Each
premise is used to support the conclusion by
to follow that killing animals is also morally
wrong. providing an example. The general idea is that
the weight of the examples establishes the claim
One way to respond to this argument is to try
to show that humans and animals are not in question.
similar enough in relevant ways for the
conclusion to follow. Another way to approach
 Although people generally present arguments that would support the claim that stem cell
by example in a fairly informal manner, they research would be harmful.
have the following logical form: Because of its usefulness is arguing that
something is beneficial or harmful, arguments
Premise 1: Example 1 is an example that by/from example are often used in conjunction
supports claim P. with the appeal to consequence (see below).
Premise n: Example n is an example that
supports claim P. Example
Conclusion: Claim P is true.
Premise 1: Stem cell research could allow
In this case n is a variable standing for the doctors to regrow replacement limbs and
number of the premise in question and P is a organs, which would be beneficial.
variable standing for the claim under Premise 2: Stem cell research could allow the
consideration. development of new treatments for disease
An example of an argument by example ranging from diabetes to Parkinson’s disease,
presented in strict form is as follows: which would be beneficial.
Premise 3: Stem cell research could allow more
Premise 1: Lena ate pizza two months ago and effective testing of drugs without using animal
did not contribute any money. or human subjects, which would be beneficial.
Premise 2: Lena ate pizza a month ago and did Conclusion: Stem cell research could have
not contribute any money. significant benefits.
Premise 3: Lena ate pizza two weeks ago and
did not contribute any money.
Premise 4: Lena ate pizza a week ago and did Standards of Assessment
not contribute any money. The strength of an analogical argument
Conclusion: Lena is a pizza mooch who eats but depends on four factors. First, the more
does not contribute. examples, the stronger the argument. For
example, if Lena only failed to pay for the pizza
Moral Argument by/from Example she ate once, then the claim that she is a mooch
Arguments by/from example are generally not who does not contribute would not be well
used to directly argue that something is right or supported-the argument would be very weak.
wrong. They are most used to argue for a claim Second, the more relevant the examples, the
that will itself be used in an explicitly moral stronger the argument. For example, if it were
argument. That is, they are generally used to concluded that Lena was a pizza mooch because
settle a factual issue. she regularly failed to pay for her share of gas
For example, suppose that someone is arguing money, then the argument would be weak. After
about stem cell research. A person in favor of all, her failure to pay gas money does not
the research might want to argue that it is strongly support the claim that she will not help
morally acceptable because of all the benefits. In pay for pizza (although it would provide
order to do this, she would most likely want to grounds for suspecting she might not pay).
argue that it has numerous significant benefits Third, the examples must be specific and
by giving examples of these benefits in an clearly identified. Vague and unidentified
argument by/from example. A person who is examples do not provide much in the way of
opposed to stem cell research might, in contrast, support. For example, if someone claimed that
want to argue that it is immoral because of the Lena was a pizza mooch because “you know,
harms it would generate. As such, he might she didn’t pay and stuff on some days…like
present various examples of significant harms some time a month or maybe a couple months
ago”, then the argument would be extremely presenting reasons or evidence showing that the
weak. research is not likely to have the alleged
Fourth, counterexamples must be considered. benefits.
A counterexample is an example that counts Such responses can be responded to in turn
against the claim. One way to look at a counter and these can also be countered. For example, if
example is that it is an example that supports it were argued that stem cell research most
the denial of the conclusion being argued for. likely will not lead to the ability to grow limbs
The more counterexamples and the more and organs, another argument could be given to
relevant they are, the weaker the argument. For try to show that it is likely that it will have the
example, if someone accuses Lena of being a alleged benefits. This process can go on for quite
pizza mooch, but other people have examples of some time, especially in very controversial
times which she did contribute, then these matters-such as stem cell research.
examples would serve as counterexamples
against the claim that she is a pizza mooch. As Examples
such, counterexamples can be used to build an
argument by example that has as its conclusion Example #1
the claim that the conclusion it counters is false. Premise 1: The painting Oath of the Horatii
shows three brothers ready to take action, while
the women are painted as passive observers.
Responding to an Argument by/from Example Premise 2: In action films, such as typical
Responding to an argument by/from example Westerns, women are cast as victims that must
in a critical manner involves assessing it based be protected and saved by men.
on the standards presented above and showing Conclusion: Art reinforces gender stereotypes.
how it fails to meet one or more of them (in the
case of counter examples, this involves Assessment of Example #1
presenting counter examples). The overall goal While art is full of stereotypes, more examples
is to show that the examples do not adequately should be used. The examples are relevant, but
support the conclusion. Naturally, an argument specific Westerns should be named and
by/from example can also be criticized by described. Finally, there are counterexamples,
questioning the truth of the premises. especially in modern films and TV, that need to
In the example given above, the gist is that be considered.
stem cell research could have significant benefits
because of the numerous examples of potential Example #2
benefits. The benefits do seem to be relevant and Premise 1: The Egyptians believed in an afterlife
adequately numerous, so the most likely as shown by their funeral preparations.
avenues of criticism would involve the other Premise 2: Plato’s writings indicate that the
two standards. First, it might be argued that the ancient Greeks believed in an afterlife.
examples need to provide more details (such as Premise 3: The Chinese practice of ancestor
the likelihood of the positive results) before the worship indicates they believed in an afterlife.
conclusion can be considered adequately Conclusion: People of ancient cultures believed
supported. Second, perhaps the best way to in an afterlife.
counter this argument is by presenting counter
examples to show that such research would be Assessment of Example #2
harmful rather than beneficial (one common More examples should be used, but the mix of
argument is that such research would devalue diverse cultures strengthens the argument. The
human life). examples are relevant. They could be more
As with any argument, the premises can be detailed but are reasonably specific. There are
challenged. In this example it would involve
some limited counterexamples, such as periods censorship of violence might cite an authority
of doubt about the afterlife in ancient Egypt. who claims that watching violent television
makes children violent.
It should be noted that an argument from
Argument from Authority authority is not an exceptionally strong
argument. After all, in such cases a claim is
being accepted as true simply because a person
Introduction is asserting that it is true. The person may be an
This is an argument in which the conclusion is expert, but her expertise does not really bear on
supported by citing an authority. Since the the actual truth (or falsity) of the claim. This is
argument is based on an appeal to the authority, because the expertise of a person does not
the strength of the support depends on the actually determine whether the claim is true or
quality of the authority in question. Given that false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with
no one can be an expert on everything and the evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to
fact that people regularly need reliable be stronger.
information, these arguments are very common. Despite the inherent weakness in this
In fact, they are used so often that people argument, a person who is a legitimate expert is
generally do not even realize they are being more likely to be right than wrong when making
used. For example, when a politician cites an considered claims within her area of expertise.
economist to justify her policies, she is making In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it
an argument from authority. As another is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested
example, when a student cites a source stating the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the
that a historic event took place, he is using an expert has found it to be reliable, then it is
argument from authority. As a final example, reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the
when people trust a news source (such as CNN, listener is accepting a claim based on the
The Daily Show, or Fox News) they are probably testimony of the expert. Naturally, the main
relying on an argument from authority-they challenge is determining whether the person in
assume the news source should be trusted question is a legitimate expert or not.
because the people involved are supposed to be
experts. Strict Form
Not surprisingly, this argument is used when Strictly presented, an argument from
a person lacks the required knowledge and authority will have two premises and a
expertise and therefore needs to rely on another conclusion. The first premise claims the person
source of information. For example, most is an authority on a particular subject. The
lawyers are not experts on DNA testing or second presents the claim made by the authority
ballistics, so they hire experts to testify in court. in the subject in question and the conclusion
In effect they are saying that what the expert asserts that because an authority made the claim
says about the DNA or gun is true because the in her area of expertise, it is true.
expert is an expert. This sort of argument is also Although people generally present arguments
used when a person wants to add extra weight from authority in an informal manner, they have
to his/her position. For example, an author of a the following logical form:
book on dieting might cite other doctors and
nutritional experts that agree with her views on Premise 1: Person A is (claimed to be) an
dieting. authority on subject S.
Like other arguments, an argument from Premise 2: Person A makes claim C about
authority can be used to establish its conclusion subject S.
for use as a premise in another argument. For Premise 3: Therefore, C is true.
example, a person who is arguing for the
 A is a variable that is replaced with the require having a university degree. Many
authority’s name, S is a variable that is replaced people have high degrees of expertise in
with the subject and C is a variable that is sophisticated subjects without having ever
replaced with the actual claim. For example: attended a university. Further, it should not be
simply assumed that a person with a degree is
Premise 1: Dr. Michael LaBossiere is an an expert.
authority on arguments. Of course, what is required to be an expert is
Premise 2: Dr. Michael LaBossiere clams in the often a matter of great debate. For example,
subject area of arguments, that an argument by some people have (and do) claim expertise in
example has two premises. certain (even all) areas because of a divine
Conclusion: Therefore, it is true that an inspiration or a special gift. The followers of
argument by example has two premises. such people accept such credentials as
establishing the person’s expertise while others
Standards of Assessment often see these self-proclaimed experts as
An argument from authority is assessed in deluded or even as charlatans. In other
terms of six standards. If an argument meets situations, people debate over what sort of
these standards, then it is an acceptable education and experience is needed to be an
argument from authority and it is reasonable to expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a
accept the conclusion based on the premises. If fallacious appeal another person might take to
the argument fails to meet the standards, then it be a well-supported line of reasoning.
would not be reasonable to accept the Fortunately, many cases do not involve such
conclusion based on the premises. Bad debate.
arguments from authority are relatively
common and are known as fallacious appeals to 2. The claim being made by the person is within her
authority. area(s) of expertise.
If a person makes a claim about some subject
1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the
matter in question. person is not an expert in that context. Hence,
Claims made by a person who lacks the the claim in question is not backed by the
needed degree of expertise to make a reliable required degree of expertise and is not reliable.
claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In It is very important to remember that because
contrast, claims made by a person with the of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill
needed degree of expertise will be supported by it is simply not possible for one person to be an
the person’s reliability in the area. expert on everything. Hence, experts will only
Determining whether or not a person has the be true experts in respect to certain subject areas.
needed degree of expertise can often be very In most other areas they will have little or no
difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, expertise. Thus, it is important to determine
engineering, history, etc.), the person’s formal what subject area a claim falls under.
education, academic performance, publications, It is also very important to note that expertise
membership in professional societies, papers in one area does not automatically confer
presented, awards won and so forth can all be expertise in another. For example, being an
reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of expert physicist does not automatically make a
academic fields, other standards will apply. For person an expert on morality or politics.
example, having sufficient expertise to make a Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or
reliable claim about how to tie a shoelace only intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of
requires the ability to tie the shoe lace and advertising rests on a violation of this condition.
impart that information to others. It should be As anyone who watches television knows, it is
noted that being an expert does not always extremely common to get famous actors and
sports heroes to endorse products that they are important to keep in mind that even a field with
not qualified to assess. For example, a person a great deal of internal dispute might contain
may be a great actor, but that does not areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an
automatically make him an expert on cars or Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.
shaving or underwear or diets or politics.
4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among If an expert is significantly biased, then the
the other experts in the subject in question. claims he makes within his are of bias will be
If there is a significant amount of legitimate less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be
dispute among the experts within a subject, then reliable, an Argument from Authority based on
it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because
using the disputing experts. This is because for the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.
almost any claim being made and “supported” Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases
by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is and prejudices. If there is evidence that a person
made and “supported” by another expert. In is biased in some manner that would affect the
such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend reliability of her claims, then an Argument from
to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be Authority based on that person is likely to be
settled by consideration of the actual issues fallacious. Even if the claim is true, the fact that
under dispute. Since either side in such a the expert is biased weakens the argument. This
dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot is because there would be reason to believe that
be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority. the expert might not be making the claim
There are many fields in which there is a because he has carefully considered it using his
significant amount of legitimate dispute. expertise. Rather, there would be reason to
Economics is a good example of such a disputed believe that the claim is being made because of
field. Anyone who is familiar with economics the expert’s bias or prejudice.
knows that there are many plausible theories It is important to remember that no person is
that are incompatible with one another. Because completely objective. At the very least, a person
of this, one expert economist could sincerely will be favorable towards her own views
claim that the deficit is the key factor while (otherwise she would probably not hold them).
another equally qualified individual could assert Because of this, some degree of bias must be
the exact opposite. Another area where dispute accepted, provided that the bias is not
is very common (and well known) is in the area significant. What counts as a significant degree
of psychology and psychiatry. As has been of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great
demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to deal from case to case. For example, many
find one expert that will assert that an people would probably suspect that doctors
individual is insane and not competent to stand who were paid by tobacco companies to
trial and to find another equally qualified expert research the effects of smoking would be biased
who will testify, under oath, that the same while other people might believe (or claim) that
individual is both sane and competent to stand they would be able to remain objective.
trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to
Authority in such a situation without making a 5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or
fallacious argument. Such an argument would discipline.
be fallacious since the evidence would not Certain areas in which a person may claim
warrant accepting the conclusion. expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as
It is important to keep in mind that no field areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims
has complete agreement, so some degree of made in such areas will not be very reliable.
dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is
is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also sometimes difficult to determine. However,
there are cases which are clear cut. For example, This sort of reasoning is not unusual.
if a person claimed to be an expert at something Typically, the person making the argument will
he called “chromabullet therapy” and asserted say things like “I have a book that says…” , or
that firing colorfully painted rifle bullets at a “they say…”, or “the experts say…”, or
person would cure cancer, it would not be very “scientists believe that…”, or “I read in the
reasonable to accept his claim based on his paper..” or “I saw on TV…” or some similar
“expertise.” After all, his expertise is in an area statement. In such cases the person is often
which is devoid of legitimate content. The hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the
general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a unidentified source as a legitimate authority and
person must have mastery over a real field or believe the claim being made. If a person accepts
area of knowledge. the claim simply because they accept the
As noted above, determining the legitimacy of unidentified source as an expert (without good
a field can often be difficult. In European reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this
history, various scientists had to struggle with fallacy.
the Church and established traditions to
establish the validity of their disciplines. For Examples
example, experts on evolution faced an uphill
battle in getting the legitimacy of their area Example#1
accepted. Premise 1: If violent art has a harmful
A modern example involves psychic psychological effect on people, then it should be
phenomenon. Some people claim that they are censored.
certified “master psychics” and are experts in Premise 2: However, the study by Loeb and
the field. Other people contend that their claims Wombat shows that violent art has little, if any
of being certified “master psychics” are simply psychological effect on people.
absurd since there is no real content to such an Conclusion: Hence, there is no need to censor
area of expertise. If these people are right, then violent art to protect people from harm.
anyone who accepts the claims of these “master
psychics” as true are victims of a fallacious Example of Assessment
appeal to authority. The source needs to be properly identified.
Further, there is a great deal of disagreement
6. The authority in question must be identified. among the experts within the field of
A common variation of the typical fallacious psychology, especially over the matter of the
appeal to authority fallacy is an appeal to an effects of violent art.
unnamed authority. This fallacy is also known
as an appeal to an unidentified authority. Example # 2
This fallacy is committed when a person Premise 1: According to medical science, there is
asserts that a claim is true because an expert or no life after death.
authority makes the claim and the person does Premise 2: Medical science is well established.
not actually identify the expert. Since the expert Conclusion: It is clear there is no life after
is not named or identified, there is no way to tell death.
if the person is an expert. Unless the person is
identified and has his expertise established, Example of Assessment
there is no reason to accept the claim. More information is needed about medical
science, such as the exact source of the claim.