3 1 7
A p p e a l s t o A u t h o r i t y
tohavefoundmorethanfiftyidenticaltwinswhohadbeenseparatedat
birthandraisedincontrastingenvironments.Giventherarityofsuchcrea-
tures,thatisaverylargenumbertohavefound.Second,thecorrelations
heclaimedtofindwereextremelyhigh—indeed,muchhigherthanthose
usuallyfoundinresearchinthisarea.Bothofthesefactsraisedsuspicions.
StephenJayGoulddescribesBurt’sfinalundoingasfollows:
PrincetonpsychologistLeonKaminfirstnotedthat,whileBurthadincreased
hissampleoftwinsfromfewerthantwentytomorethanfiftyinaseriesof
publications,theaveragecorrelationbetweenpairsforIQremainedunchanged
tothethirddecimalplace—astatisticalsituationsounlikelythatitmatches
thevernaculardefinitionofimpossible.Then,in1976,OliverGillie,medical
correspondentoftheLondonSunday Times,elevatedthechargefrominexcusable
carelessnesstoconsciousfakery.Gilliediscovered,amongmanyotherthings,
thatBurt’stwo“collaborators”...thewomenwhosupposedlycollectedand
processedhisdata,eitherneverexistedatall,oratleastcouldnothavebeenin
contactwithBurtwhilehewrotethepapersbearingtheirnames.^5
Ofcourse,Burt’sclaimsstillmightbecorrect:genesandIQmight
becorrelated.NonethelessthepointhereisjustthatBurtandhisstudies
shouldnotbetrustedasauthorities.Outrightfraudofthiskindbysomeone
soprominentisrare,butevenafewcasesprovidesareasonforbeingsus-
piciousofauthorities,atleastwhentheirresultshavenotbeengiveninde-
pendentconfirmation.
Onelastquestionwecanaskiswhytheappealtoauthorityisbeingmade
atall.Tociteanauthorityistogiveassurances.AswenoticedinChapter3,
peopleusuallygiveassurancestostrengthenweakpointsintheirargu-
ments.Itissurprisinghowoftenwecanseewhatiswrongwithanargu-
mentjustbynoticingwhereitisbackedbyappealstoauthority.Beyond
this,weshouldbesuspiciousofargumentsthatrelyontoomanyauthori-
ties.(Wemightcallthisthefallacyofexcessive footnotes.)Goodarguments
tendtostandontheirown.
Tosummarize,relianceonexpertsandauthoritiesisunavoidableinour
complicatedandspecializedworld.Yetwestillneedtobecriticalofappeals
toauthoritybyaskingthesequestions:
1.Isthecitedauthorityinfactanauthorityintheappropriatearea?
2.Isthisthekindofquestionthatcannowbesettledbyexpert
consensus?
3.Hastheauthoritybeencitedcorrectly?
4.Canthecitedauthoritybetrustedtotellthetruth?
5.Whyisanappealtoauthoritybeingmadeatall?
Iftheanswerstoquestions1–4are“Yes,”thentheappealtoauthorityisprob-
ablyjustified.Still,eventhebestauthoritiesmakemistakes,sotheconclusion
ofanyappealtoauthoritymightturnouttobefalse.Wecanreduceerrors
byappealingtobetterauthorities,butnoauthoritycanguaranteethetruth.
97364_ch15_ptg01_307-322.indd 317 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.