AC question for defense

[Magick]

Wikipedia?  Really?
Alright.  Wikipedia it is.  

Same article:
"Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth."
-The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Bradley Dowden

"Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them."
-The "Fallacies" entry by Hans Hansen in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

Valid forms

The valid form of argument is one in which a recognized and knowledgeable authority on the relevant subject is appealed to by citing a statement by that authority. This is a form of inductive reasoning in that the conclusion is not logically certain, but likely. Examples include following the treatments prescribed by a medical doctor, or citing a respected author to establish claims of fact in a written work.

Fallacious forms

When misused, the argument typically forms an informal fallacy. This form of the argument occurs when the presumed authority appealed to is compromised in some way; such as being an expert in the wrong subject or is giving views from one side of an active controversy. Some examples of this are citing a popular astrophysicist for claims about molecular biology; an Olympic athlete's endorsement of a product they do not use; or a long retired professor's claims about a current debate in their field. This forms an informal fallacy because the first proposition is untrue.

 

An argument from authority says that an authority is likely to be true and not certain, yes.  But the fallacy is about someone that cites an authority or that the authority is out of their field of expertise.

"For example, saying 'There is no God, because Stephen Hawking said so and is a knowledgeable physicist' is an appeal to a misleading authority as Hawking's qualifications in physics do not automatically make his argument correct..."
-http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

 

[Erelei]

Can't believe I have to close this thread. Kinda laughing right now.