Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard 1468

Joe Peschel

I don't know. I think I do understand the fallacy. Of course, you are welcome to point out flaws in my understanding, if you like.

The fallacy is relying solely on argument from authority, when that is not appropriate. In the event of a dispute about some scientific question, we don't settle the dispute by resorting argument from authority -- we settle the dispute by referring to actual experimental evidence.

Here is a quote from one web page I found on various kinds of fallacies, that discusses appeal to authority.

``An appeal to authority may be inappropriate in a couple of ways:

* It is unnecessary. If a question can be answered by observation or calculation, an argument from authority is not needed. Since arguments from authority are weaker than more direct evidence, go look or figure it out for yourself. A particularly amusing example is the claim that the value of pi can be determined to be 3 based on certain pbuttages in the Old Testament. The value of pi, however, is a mathematical question which can be answered by calculation, and appeal to authority is irrelevant. To sum up these points in a positive manner, before relying upon expert opinion, go through the following checklist:

* Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", ''

I am saying that no scientific claim can be proven solely with appeal to authority. Instead, science relies on observation, experiments, and other procedures that are independently verifiable. If it is not independently verifiable, it is not science. And appeal to authority is not independently verifiable.