Reply #98: Well, the list can also just speak for itself, but that's a different question. [View All]

It is perfectly proper to attempt to impeach Gage's credentials and the credentials of any other experts he refers to. That is not the same thing as claiming an appeal to authority fallacy.

My suggestion is to drop the use of the term "appeal to authority" and the definition that you provide. Once again, that definition is trying to say that an appeal to authority is improper in certain settings. But Gage's presentation is not one of those settings and it is perfectly proper for him to bring in as many experts as he wishes. If you dispute the credentials of his experts you are not claiming an appeal to authority fallacy. In fact, you are admitting that the use of experts would be proper but just disputing that his purported experts are in fact experts.

Let me try it a different way.

If my analytic geometry professor asks me to write a proof that two sides and an enclosed angle are enough to uniquely define a triangle, she is not going to be happy if I submit the following proof:



A reasonable response by my professor would be to scribble down the definition of "appeal to authority logical fallacy" next to the "F".

If, on the other hand, I am using DNA to make a case that a convicted rapist is innocent then, not only will I be permitted to call in an authority, I will be expected to. When I say that I'm going to bring in an expert, my opposing counsel will not claim, before even hearing who it is, that I'm committing the "appeal to authority logical fallacy". Rather, my opponent will take it as a given that I'm to bring in an expert and the, after finding out who the expert is, will attempt to impeach my expert's credentials or else bring in her own experts. Neither of these two latter arguments are a claim of "appeal to authority fallacy" and it would make no sense for my opponent to quote its definition as part of her argument.

So, once again, I think it is perfectly proper for you to dispute the expertise or credentials of Gage or any expert that he brings in. I don't claim that you are guilty of an ad hominem attack because that is what you call it when it is improper because of the context. When the context makes both claims by experts and disputes as to their expertise proper then it is not called an ad hominem attack, it is called impeaching an expert.

_{Edit: formatting.}