I suspect that perhaps most are familiar with the fallacy of arguing from authority, but just in case not, then in essence, this is the basis for it.
A claim is correct because the claim has been made by somebody who is authoritative.
OK, if it is a well known fallacy, then why write about it? Well, I’d like to take a look at three real-world examples to illustrate that there are multiple variations of this, and that no variation is an exception. This includes:
- Fake Credentials – A supposed expert making claims, but their Ph.D. is fake
- Out-Of-Context Credentials – A supposed expert making claims, but the subject of their degree has nothing to do with the claim
- Real Credentials, but a bullshit claim – An true expert, with a real claim, but no actual evidence for the claim
So lets take a look at each of these it turn.