Thanks for the insult.
I didn't just pick up the first thing on google and accept it as truth. I already knew what appeal to authority was, i just used that definition because it explained what appeal to authority is. It appears we disagree on the definition of appeal to authority.
In my opinion, as well as the several definitions i just found over the internet, including wikipedia, is that it is only a logical fallacy if the "authority" is not a legitimate authority of the subject. Kind of like when a celebrity endorses a product.
Well, obviously, you didn't get it from Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has a different explanation (that can be PART of a logical fallacy, but it's not necessarily the only form of it). Also, whether I'm right or not (pretty sure I am, but hypothetically), it still doesn't make sense logically to say, "Yes, because this person believes in something and he is an authority on the matter, then LOGICALLY, it MUST be true." Granted, like I say, it can make things more plausible, but it doesn't necessitate it. Which is why it's a fallacy to say that it does.
Argumentum ad verecundiam is an argument which takes the assumption that one source is better than another source due to its supposed "authority." Appeal to authority is a form of appeal to absurdity because it really has nothing to do with the matter.
In my opinion it is illogical to take a high school graduate's opinion on physics rather than someone who recieved their masters in physics.
Or
Lets say for example you need open heart surgery. And you tell me you are going to an open heart surgeon. To you i would say
"Why would you go to an open heart surgeon? Thats just appeal to authority. Here, let me refer you to my podiatrist."
[/quote]
It may be illogical practically, but logically, it's not. Practical logic is far different from formal logic, obviously. The heart surgeon versus pediatrist issue is where you employ PRACTICAL logic, because a professional opinion would probably be more important. However, in formal logic, since a belief does not necessitate a logical proof, it's still wrong to assume that it's a truth just because some people believe it.
Refer to the logical process:
A says that B is correct.
A has good qualities about him.
Thus B.
This is incorrect logic as a stand-alone argument. It is an inference made by the implications, and may make the argument more plausible, but it doesn't mean that the argument has to be correct just because A is a good person.
I was thinking ad populum. I guess this is why I failed my Philo classes.
The Bandwagon Fallacy also works on this topic, and I touched on that, too, but since he's saying that "more qualified" individuals' opinions should be accepted as fact and left it at that, it's more Ad Verecundiam.
~D-Draw