#appealtoauthority — Public Fediverse posts

Taken on Monday, 5 January, 2026 at 13:06 with Samsung Galaxy A05s at North Wenang Sub-district, Wenang District, Manado, North Sulawesi, Indonesia.

#sofiaflorina #ソフィアフロリナ #authority #authorities #becritical #government #governments #thegovernment #appealtoauthority #logicalfallacy #fallacy #fallacies #itstrue #itistrue #thatstrue #thatistrue #reality #thereality #provemewrong #iknowright

You know that I always try to be balanced. For example, if the government implements a good policy then I praise it and if it is bad then I criticise it. I won't follow people's words that easily, especially if they are not my friends, you know.

#sofiaflorina #ソフィアフロリナ #authority #authorities #becritical #government #governments #thegovernment #appealtoauthority #logicalfallacy #fallacy #fallacies #itstrue #itistrue #thatstrue #thatistrue #reality #thereality #provemewrong #iknowright

I don't care of course, whatever. My mother is like that too, although in her case it happens a lot at her workplace. Many leaders are wrong, they must be told that they are wrong, they must be criticised. One of the reasons my mother was often discriminated against, sad.

#sofiaflorina #ソフィアフロリナ #authority #authorities #becritical #government #governments #thegovernment #appealtoauthority #logicalfallacy #fallacy #fallacies #itstrue #itistrue #thatstrue #thatistrue #reality #thereality

Honestly, I'm often disliked because people say I like to argue with people who other people consider influential or powerful. When I was at school, I used to argue with my teachers a lot, of course, because most of them were not so smart enough to be my teachers.

#sofiaflorina #ソフィアフロリナ #authority #authorities #becritical #government #governments #thegovernment #appealtoauthority #logicalfallacy #fallacy #fallacies #itstrue #itistrue #thatstrue #thatistrue #reality #thereality

Sorry for those of you who are offended, it's the fact. Not everything that the authorities say must be accepted or obeyed at face value. It's surprising how many people can easily believe anything the government says. I mean, at least check the truth first, be critical.

#sofiaflorina #ソフィアフロリナ #authority #authorities #becritical #government #governments #thegovernment #appealtoauthority #logicalfallacy #fallacy #fallacies #itstrue #itistrue #thatstrue #thatistrue #reality #thereality

There are still quite a lot of people who think that whatever an authority, such as the government, says is accepted as true. Argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority. Thankfully I'm not like that, especially since I'm knowledgeable and well educated.

#sofiaflorina #ソフィアフロリナ #authority #authorities #becritical #government #governments #thegovernment #appealtoauthority #logicalfallacy #fallacy #fallacies #itstrue #itistrue #thatstrue #thatistrue #reality #thereality #provemewrong

Real expertise: "Here's how this mechanism actually functions."

Phantom expertise: "I have credentials (unspecified), institutional validation (from those I defend), and sophisticated language (that pathologises your recognition)."

The second sounds more credible.

The first is actually useful.

Learn to tell the difference.

#Expertise #Credentialism #CriticalThinking #AppealToAuthority

@strypey False.

Though I might have phrased that with greater clarity.

First, "appeal to authority" is one of several informal fallacies, that is, it doesn't automatically invalidate a statement, but it does suggest a weakness.

Second, appeal to authority refers to power or position independent of epistemic characteristics. In its classic form it often referred to reliance on religious or political statements, or perhaps on overreliance of ancient sources (e.g., Aristotle, classically, in mediaeval and Renaissance Europe). There are heavy overtones of Papal infallability to it.

Expertise is direct experience or knowledge of a subject, or general knowledge of a field. It is a measure of credibility for knowledge of which we cannot ourselves claim first-hand familiarity. Or, often, for which a first impression gives a false or misleading sense as compared to a deeper understanding.

It is expertise and not authority we are relying on when we cite a reference work (dictionary, encyclopedia, desk reference, statistics, textbook, article), or when we call on expert witnesses in legal or other hearings. There's some confounding of this in common parlance as an expert is often referred to as an authority, but in most cases that authority derives from specific experience, reputation, and credibility rather than some conferred political or social power.

Expertise and credibility are not absolutes, and neither @vik nor I are claiming this. I've specifically indicated these are fallible. You've specifically misrepresented our statements as claiming otherwise. Which, I might add, makes you an unreliable source.

However as an initial prior for judging information it is a USEFUL guide. And in matters epistemic, utility has an extraordinary significance. We CANNOT be called upon to judge and assess each and every claim individually (regards the claim) and personally (regards persons). Instead we rely on standards, institutions, and practices of trust and presumed belief. We change our views as evidence changes, or as authorities previously viewed as credible come to be generally assessed as unreliable.

In the context of the present discussion, Sabine Hossenfelder is providing a summary news piece in which she's discussing items of interest to a general science community. Specific expertise in physics and mathematics is a valid basis for general understanding, and we can further presume that Hossenfelder has a team assisting in that process (she alludes to this in multiple ways).

What we're relying on her for then is:

• To filter through candidate stories to find those of greatest relevance and significance.
• To accurately summarize and present findings.
• Where she does so, to accurately express opinions on the overall findings or nature of the items.

Which is to say: this is not scholarly or academic research itself, but a review of that research. Details of methodology and findings are going to be in the referenced documents.

And the general expertise and credibility are specifically what is relevant for a scientific communicator / news presenter, in such a case.

I noted above that the overhead of researching and rebutting every last claim is nonfeasible --- it's effectively a denial-of-serivce attack on our brains individually and on public knowledge generally. So is rebutting lazy, inaccurate, and if I may use the term, bullshit arguments or objections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Mostly, though, it leads to extraordinarily tedious side tangents rather than a substantive discussion of the main topic at hand. There are times when it's reasonable to question sources. This ... really isn't one.

Edit: Markdown fixes .

#BullshitArgumentsWhichMustDie #BrandolinosLaw #Bullshit #AppealToAuthority #Expertise #Credibility #Trust #Epistemology #Knowledge #KnowingWhatWeKnow

@taylorlorenz
"replies simply do not accomplish" ... what?

Not accomplishing a non-explanatory dunk on the OP?

#Journalists that "quote post" are not interested in a dialog searching for #Truth (aka "Communicating effectively")

They're trying to undermine communication by intersecting an #AppealToAuthority by virtue of their #byline.

"Quote Posting" is media's technique for tagging the quoted post" as a nonsensical diversion unworthy of debate.

1/2