3 1 5
A p p e a l s t o A u t h o r i t y
dealingwithafallacy of relevance.Forexample,beingamoviestardoesnot
qualifyapersontospeakonthemeritsofaparticularbrandoftoothpaste.
Endorsementsbyathletesofhaircreams,deodorants,beer,andautomobiles
areinthesameboat.Ofcourse,wehavetobecarefulinmakingthischarge.
Itispossiblethatcertainathletesmakesystematicstudiesofdeodorants
beforegivingonedeodoranttheirendorsement.Butitisnotlikely.
Mostpeoplerealizethatathletes,moviestars,andthelikearefeaturedin
advertisementsprimarilytoattractattentionandnotbecausetheyareexperts
concerningtheproductstheyareendorsing.Itismoresurprisinghowoften
thewrongauthoritiesarebroughtintojudgeseriousmatters.Tociteone
example,UriGellerhadlittledifficultyconvincingagroupofdistinguished
Britishscientiststhathepossessedpsychicpowers.Inparticular,hewasable
toconvincethemthathecouldbendspoonsbymentalpowersalone.Incon-
trast,JamesRandi,aprofessionalmagician,hadlittledifficultydetectingand
duplicatingthetricksthatbamboozledthescientificobservers.Theremark-
ablefeatureofthiscasewasnotthatagroupofscientistscouldbefooledby
amagician,butratherthatthesescientistsassumedthattheyhadtheexper-
tisenecessarytodecidewhetheraparanormalphenomenonhadtakenplace
ornot.Afterall,themostobviousexplanationofGeller ’sfeatswasthathe
hadsomehowcheated.Totestthispossibility,whatwasneededwasnota
scientistwithimpeccablescholarlycredentials,butamagicianwhocoulddo
thesametrickshimselfandthereforeknewwhattolookfor.^3
Itis,ofcourse,difficulttodecidewhethersomeoneisanexpertinafield
whenyouyourselfarenot,butcertainclueswillhelpyoumakethisdeci-
sion.Ifthesupposedauthorityclaimstohaveknowledgeofthingsthathe
orshecouldnotpossiblypossess(forexample,aboutprivateconversations
thepersoncouldnothaveheard),thenyouhavelittlereasontotrustother
thingsthatpersonhastosay.Youknowthatheorshehasnoqualmsabout
makingthingsup.Furthermore,itisoftenpossibletospot-checkcertain
claimsinordertomakesurethattheyarecorrect.Itmaytakeoneexpertto
determineanother,butitoftentakeslittlemorethangoodcommonsense
andanunwillingnesstobefooledtodetectafraud.
Evenwhenitisclearthatthecitedpersonisanexpertintheappropriate
field,wecanstillaskwhetherthequestionisofthekindthatcannowbeset-
tledbyanappealtoexperts.Onesignthataquestioncannotyetbesettledby
expertsisthatexpertsinthatareadonotagreewitheachother.Itdoesnot
domuchgoodtociteoneauthorityinsupportofaclaimifanotherauthor-
itywithjustasmuchexpertisewouldendorsetheoppositeclaim.Moreover,
eventhebestexpertssometimessimplygetthingswrong.Forexample,in
1932 AlbertEinstein,whowassurelyanexpertinthefield,declared,“There
isnottheslightestindicationthat[nuclear]energywilleverbeobtainable.It
wouldmeanthattheatomwouldhavetobeshatteredatwill.”Justayear
later,theatomwas,infact,split.Evenso,aleadingBritishphysicist,Ernest
LordRutherford,insistedthatthesplittingoftheatomwouldnotleadtothe
developmentofnuclearpower,saying,“Theenergyproducedbytheatomis
97364_ch15_ptg01_307-322.indd 315 15/11/13 11:04 AM
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.