1
00:00:00,012 --> 00:00:06,865
So far we've been discussing ad hominem 
arguments, deniers, silencers, and 

2
00:00:06,865 --> 00:00:10,864
dismissers. 
And as I've said, many ad hominem 

3
00:00:10,864 --> 00:00:15,169
arguments are guilty of a fallacy of 
relevance. 

4
00:00:15,169 --> 00:00:19,652
The premises are not relevant to the 
conclusion. 

5
00:00:19,652 --> 00:00:24,067
Now I'd like to describe a different kind 
of argument, 

6
00:00:24,067 --> 00:00:27,905
an argument that I call an appeal to 
authority. 

7
00:00:27,905 --> 00:00:33,566
And many arguments of this second kind 
are also guilty of fallacies of 

8
00:00:33,566 --> 00:00:36,752
relevance. 
Now appeals to authority, 

9
00:00:36,752 --> 00:00:42,606
like ad hominem arguments, start from 
premises about a particular person, a 

10
00:00:42,606 --> 00:00:48,632
person who is making a certain point or 
defending a certain conclusion and they 

11
00:00:48,632 --> 00:00:54,744
move from premesis about that person to a 
conclusion that's about the point that 

12
00:00:54,744 --> 00:01:00,864
person is making So in the respect that I 
just mentioned appeals to authority are 

13
00:01:00,864 --> 00:01:06,204
just like ad hominem arguments. 
But there's one important difference. 

14
00:01:06,204 --> 00:01:12,182
Whereas ad hominem arguments, draw a 
negative conclusion, about the point that 

15
00:01:12,182 --> 00:01:17,772
some person is making, appeals to 
authority draw a positive conclusion 

16
00:01:17,772 --> 00:01:24,161
about the point that person is making. 
So just as there are three different 

17
00:01:24,161 --> 00:01:31,060
kinds of ad hominem arguments, deniers, 
silencers, and dismissers, so to there 

18
00:01:31,060 --> 00:01:37,362
are three different kinds of appeals to 
authority and I'm going to call them 

19
00:01:37,362 --> 00:01:43,512
[SOUND] 

20
00:01:43,512 --> 00:01:52,312
affirmers, 

21
00:01:52,312 --> 00:01:58,462
[SOUND] 

22
00:01:58,462 --> 00:02:10,710
amplifiers, and supporters. 
Now lets consider each one of these types 

23
00:02:10,710 --> 00:02:19,272
in turn. 
Let's start by talking about affirmers. 

24
00:02:19,272 --> 00:02:23,889
Affirmers, recall, are the opposite of 
denier ad hominem arguments. 

25
00:02:23,889 --> 00:02:28,975
In the denier ad hominem argument, we 
start with premises about a person who's 

26
00:02:28,975 --> 00:02:34,111
making a certain point, and we move to 
the conclusion that the point that that 

27
00:02:34,111 --> 00:02:37,212
person is making is false, or probably 
false. 

28
00:02:37,212 --> 00:02:42,282
In an affirmer appeal to authority 
argument, we once again, start with 

29
00:02:42,282 --> 00:02:47,937
premises about a particular person, but 
then we move to the conclusion that the 

30
00:02:47,937 --> 00:02:52,817
point that the person is making is true 
or anyhow, likely to be true. 

31
00:02:52,817 --> 00:02:57,362
Let me give you an example of an affirmer 
appeal to authority. 

32
00:02:57,362 --> 00:03:02,400
Suppose I said you write now, I'm talking 
to you. 

33
00:03:02,400 --> 00:03:12,692
Now you might reason as follows. Rom said 
that he was talking to me, therefore he 

34
00:03:12,692 --> 00:03:18,417
was talking to me. 
So you start with a premise about me, 

35
00:03:18,417 --> 00:03:24,917
about what it is that I said. 
In this case I said that I was talking to 

36
00:03:24,917 --> 00:03:32,357
you and then you move from that premise 
to the conclusion that I was talking to 

37
00:03:32,357 --> 00:03:35,975
you. 
Now notice in this case the conclusion 

38
00:03:35,975 --> 00:03:41,042
that you arrive at is the conclusion that 
what I've said is true. 

39
00:03:41,042 --> 00:03:47,227
Because what I said just that I'm talking 
to you and your conclusion is that I'm 

40
00:03:47,227 --> 00:03:51,774
talking to you. 
So your conclusion is just the acceptance 

41
00:03:51,774 --> 00:03:57,426
of the truth of what I've said. 
Now why do you accept your conclusion? 

42
00:03:57,426 --> 00:04:01,105
Well because I said that I was talking to 
you. 

43
00:04:01,105 --> 00:04:07,192
But you see, I coudn't have said to you 
that I was talking to you unless I was 

44
00:04:07,192 --> 00:04:11,565
talking to you. 
So this is a case of an affirmer appeal 

45
00:04:11,565 --> 00:04:15,495
to authority, 
an argument where you start with a 

46
00:04:15,495 --> 00:04:22,502
premise about me, and you move to a 
conclusion, to the effect that the point 

47
00:04:22,502 --> 00:04:27,927
I was making was true. 
It's an affirmer appeal to authority 

48
00:04:27,927 --> 00:04:33,352
that's justified. 
The argument that you just made is a good 

49
00:04:33,352 --> 00:04:37,592
argument. 
If I did say to you, that I'm talking to 

50
00:04:37,592 --> 00:04:41,407
you, then it's true. 
That I'm talking to you. 

51
00:04:41,407 --> 00:04:46,412
So this is a case of a justified affirmer 
appealed to authority. 

52
00:04:46,412 --> 00:04:52,502
But there are also cases of unjustified 
affirmer appeals to authority. 

53
00:04:52,502 --> 00:05:00,540
Now let me give an example of an 
unjustified affirmer appeal to authority. 

54
00:05:00,540 --> 00:05:06,321
Suppose I say to you now, Je parle 
Francais tres bien. 

55
00:05:06,321 --> 00:05:11,692
Now in French that means I speak French 
very well. 

56
00:05:11,692 --> 00:05:20,560
Now if I say that to you right now, you 
might conclude that I do speak French 

57
00:05:20,560 --> 00:05:24,348
very well. 
Because I just said, Je parle Francais 

58
00:05:24,348 --> 00:05:30,306
tres bien. 
But that would be a mistake, and it's not 

59
00:05:30,306 --> 00:05:36,452
just a mistake because I don't speak 
French very well, it's also a fallacious 

60
00:05:36,452 --> 00:05:42,715
inference, because when I say in my poor 
broken French, Je parle Francais tres 

61
00:05:42,715 --> 00:05:48,309
bien, I'm not giving you very good 
evidence that I do speak French very 

62
00:05:48,309 --> 00:05:52,177
well. 
So for you to conclude on the basis of 

63
00:05:52,177 --> 00:05:58,645
what I've said, that I speak French very 
well, would be for you to draw an 

64
00:05:58,645 --> 00:06:04,097
unjustified conclusion. 
So that's an example of an affirmer 

65
00:06:04,097 --> 00:06:10,972
appeal to authority that is unjustified. 
Now let me talk about amplifiers. 

66
00:06:10,972 --> 00:06:16,475
An amplifier is an appeal to authority in 
which we move from a premise about a 

67
00:06:16,475 --> 00:06:22,277
particular person who is making a point 
to the conclusion that their point is one 

68
00:06:22,277 --> 00:06:27,998
that we should pay special attention to. 
We should lend special credence to the 

69
00:06:27,998 --> 00:06:33,487
point they're making. 
Now, some affirmers are justified. 

70
00:06:33,487 --> 00:06:42,555
So, for instance, suppose we're trying to 
figure out whether a player in some game, 

71
00:06:42,555 --> 00:06:50,120
is guilty or not of a foul, and the 
referee declares the player guilty of a 

72
00:06:50,120 --> 00:06:57,055
foul Now, you might reason that since the 
referee said that the player was guilty 

73
00:06:57,055 --> 00:07:01,437
of a foul, that means the player is 
guilty of a foul. 

74
00:07:01,437 --> 00:07:08,241
What you're doing there, is reasoning 
from the fact that the referee said it to 

75
00:07:08,241 --> 00:07:14,727
the truth of what the referee said. 
But the reason why you assign importance 

76
00:07:14,727 --> 00:07:21,457
to the fact that the referee said it is 
because in most games the referee gets to 

77
00:07:21,457 --> 00:07:25,443
decide if the person is guilty of a foul 
or not. 

78
00:07:25,443 --> 00:07:29,487
Whatever the referee decides is taken as 
truth. 

79
00:07:29,487 --> 00:07:34,429
So there the referee is in a special 
position to decide what's true. 

80
00:07:34,429 --> 00:07:40,323
In contrast to other people, who might 
have opinions about what's true, but have 

81
00:07:40,323 --> 00:07:45,643
no authority to decide the matter. 
Now in that case, where you infer from 

82
00:07:45,643 --> 00:07:51,232
the fact the referee said the player's 
guilty of the foul, (no period) To the 

83
00:07:51,232 --> 00:07:56,442
conclusion that the player is guilty of a 
foul, you make an appeal to authority 

84
00:07:56,442 --> 00:08:00,590
that in general is justified. 
That's an example of a justified 

85
00:08:00,590 --> 00:08:04,589
amplifier argument. 
But there are also amplifier arguments 

86
00:08:04,589 --> 00:08:08,712
that are unjustified. 
For instance, suppose that the tallest 

87
00:08:08,712 --> 00:08:13,902
player on the field, declared, that some 
other player was guilty of a foul. 

88
00:08:13,902 --> 00:08:18,452
Well you might infer that since the 
tallest player on the field says that 

89
00:08:18,452 --> 00:08:23,172
this other player was guilty of a foul, 
the oth, other player is guilty of a 

90
00:08:23,172 --> 00:08:25,357
foul. 
But that would be a mistake. 

91
00:08:25,357 --> 00:08:30,142
Just because the tallest player on the 
field said so, doesn't mean that they 

92
00:08:30,142 --> 00:08:35,576
have any special voice in the matter. 
And special role in determining, whether 

93
00:08:35,576 --> 00:08:38,581
or not the other player is guilty of a 
foul. 

94
00:08:38,581 --> 00:08:43,845
So amplifier arguments, just like 
silencer arguments, can be justfied, or 

95
00:08:43,845 --> 00:08:47,555
unjustified. 
And when they're unjustified, they're 

96
00:08:47,555 --> 00:08:52,894
guilty, of a fallacy of relevance. 
Finally, I want to talk about, supporter 

97
00:08:52,894 --> 00:08:58,402
appeals to authority. 
In the supporter appeal to authority, you 

98
00:08:58,402 --> 00:09:05,024
move from a premise about a particular 
person who is making a point to the 

99
00:09:05,024 --> 00:09:12,412
conclusion that the point they're making 
is one that you have additional reason to 

100
00:09:12,412 --> 00:09:16,248
believe. 
So it's the opposite of a dismisser ad 

101
00:09:16,248 --> 00:09:20,626
hominem argument. 
In a dismisser ad hominem argument, you 

102
00:09:20,626 --> 00:09:26,935
move from a premise about a person making 
a particular point to the conclusion that 

103
00:09:26,935 --> 00:09:31,474
their point is one that you have no 
special reason to believe. 

104
00:09:31,474 --> 00:09:36,052
Finally let's talk about supporter 
appeals to authority. 

105
00:09:36,052 --> 00:09:42,457
In the supporter appeal to authority you 
move from a premise about a person who's 

106
00:09:42,457 --> 00:09:48,952
making a particular point, to conclusion 
that the point they are making is worthy 

107
00:09:48,952 --> 00:09:54,237
of belief, is likely to be true. 
So, let's consider an example of a 

108
00:09:54,237 --> 00:10:01,107
supporter appeal to authority. 
The intergovernmental panel on climate 

109
00:10:01,107 --> 00:10:09,042
change has said that over the last 
century, the temperature of the Earth has 

110
00:10:09,042 --> 00:10:15,082
gone up by 1 degree Celsius. 
Now do you believe that? I do. 

111
00:10:15,082 --> 00:10:21,179
And I believe it because. 
I believe that the Intergovernmental 

112
00:10:21,179 --> 00:10:27,791
Panel on Climate Change represent the 
best effort of a whole lot of experts 

113
00:10:27,791 --> 00:10:32,611
about climate. 
So, because there's a lot of expertise 

114
00:10:32,611 --> 00:10:39,677
that goes into the IPCC's information I 
accept the conclusion that they come to. 

115
00:10:39,677 --> 00:10:46,251
The fact that they say it, lends that 
conclusion a great deal of creadence in 

116
00:10:46,251 --> 00:10:52,554
my mind because they're experts. 
That's an example of a supporter appeal 

117
00:10:52,554 --> 00:10:56,512
to authority. 
That I take it, is justified. 

118
00:10:56,512 --> 00:11:04,207
But lets compare that to a supporter 
appeal to authority that is unjustified. 

119
00:11:04,207 --> 00:11:12,065
Suppose that a magician performs at the 
IPCC panel on climate change, and in the 

120
00:11:12,065 --> 00:11:20,062
course of the magician's performance, the 
magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, 

121
00:11:20,062 --> 00:11:25,278
well everyone in the audience is 
astonished doesn't understand how this 

122
00:11:25,278 --> 00:11:29,092
magician could possibly have pulled a 
rabbit out of a hat. 

123
00:11:29,092 --> 00:11:34,165
And the magician says to them, it's 
magic, and look, I've just prove to you 

124
00:11:34,165 --> 00:11:38,247
that magic exists. 
Well suppose the magician was able to 

125
00:11:38,247 --> 00:11:44,927
pursuade All of the members of the IPCC, 
that magic exists, because he was just 

126
00:11:44,927 --> 00:11:48,552
able to pull a rabbit out of a hat after 
all. 

127
00:11:48,552 --> 00:11:55,247
And so the IPCC includes in, its report 
on climate change, an appendix about the 

128
00:11:55,247 --> 00:12:00,317
existence of magic. 
Now, I don't know about you, but I would 

129
00:12:00,317 --> 00:12:05,797
not believe what the IPCC has to say 
about the existance of magic. 

130
00:12:05,797 --> 00:12:12,562
It's not that I think that the members of 
the IPCC aren't experts about anything, 

131
00:12:12,562 --> 00:12:16,912
but I don't think that they're experts 
about magic. 

132
00:12:16,912 --> 00:12:23,797
So while I might trust what they say when 
it comes to climate, I don't trust what 

133
00:12:23,797 --> 00:12:30,607
they say when it comes to magic because 
they have no special reliability on the 

134
00:12:30,607 --> 00:12:35,572
topic of magic. 
So, an unjustified support or appeal to 

135
00:12:35,572 --> 00:12:42,572
authority would be an argument that moved 
from some premise about the IPCC, to a 

136
00:12:42,572 --> 00:12:49,747
conclusion that we have special reason to 
believe the IPCC when it says that magic 

137
00:12:49,747 --> 00:12:53,966
exists. 
Just because the IPCC consists of a bunch 

138
00:12:53,966 --> 00:13:00,293
of experts on climate doesn't mean that 
it consists of a bunch of experts on 

139
00:13:00,293 --> 00:13:03,615
magic. 
And so, any support or appeal to 

140
00:13:03,615 --> 00:13:09,963
authority that tried to reinforce the 
IPCC's statement of the existence of 

141
00:13:09,963 --> 00:13:13,862
magic by appeal to the reliabilty of the 
IPCC. 

142
00:13:13,862 --> 00:13:17,753
Would be an unjustified supporter appeal 
to authority. 

143
00:13:17,753 --> 00:13:22,992
So far today we've talked about different 
kinds of ad hominem arguments and 

144
00:13:22,992 --> 00:13:28,674
different kinds of appeals to authority. 
We've distinguished three varieties of 

145
00:13:28,674 --> 00:13:33,200
each of those kinds. 
And we've distinguish between the 

146
00:13:33,200 --> 00:13:40,785
justified and the unjustified versions of 
each of those varieties. But what we find 

147
00:13:40,785 --> 00:13:48,114
in every day life is that we frequently 
encounter dismisser ad hominem arguments 

148
00:13:48,114 --> 00:13:54,140
and supporter appeals to authority and We 
need to choose between these. 

149
00:13:54,140 --> 00:13:59,151
We're in a situation where we need to 
decide whether or not a particular 

150
00:13:59,151 --> 00:14:04,690
dissmissor ad hominem argument is any 
good or a particular supporter appeal to 

151
00:14:04,690 --> 00:14:09,019
authority is any good. 
And those are the situations that this 

152
00:14:09,019 --> 00:14:14,213
course should be aimed to address. 
So next time I'm going to discuss those 

153
00:14:14,213 --> 00:14:18,197
situations in more detail. 
And with more examples. 

154
00:14:18,197 --> 00:14:23,854
Also I should mention, all of the 
examples that we've considered today of 

155
00:14:23,854 --> 00:14:29,747
ad hominem arguments or appeals to 
authority were examples where what was at 

156
00:14:29,747 --> 00:14:33,822
issue was the testimony of a particular 
individual. 

157
00:14:33,822 --> 00:14:38,751
Sometimes it's not individual testimony 
that we're considering. 

158
00:14:38,751 --> 00:14:44,418
Sometimes the point that we're asking 
about is a point that's being made by a 

159
00:14:44,418 --> 00:14:49,043
group, or by a tradition, or by a 
culture, or by a government. 

160
00:14:49,043 --> 00:14:53,682
And in those cases as well, we can have 
ad hominem arguments. 

161
00:14:53,682 --> 00:14:58,690
That tried to undermine the authority of 
that group, or that culture, or that 

162
00:14:58,690 --> 00:15:03,792
government, and appeals to authority that 
try to support the authority of that 

163
00:15:03,792 --> 00:15:09,135
group or that culture or that government. 
Next time we'll talk about some examples 

164
00:15:09,135 --> 00:15:09,990
of those also.