New Sub-Category of the Ad-Hominem Fallacy: Appeal to the Unqualified Person

An Appeal to Unqualified Authority (aka: argumentum ad verecundiam) is also a fallacy that is committed whenever someone proposes that some conclusion is true because someone who is NOT an authority on the subject SAID it was true. In other words, the very fact that I am not an authority means a greater likelihood that what I am saying is true. This is an example of those who are suspicious of any kind of authority because it is felt they have an agenda. In contrast, the person with no authority has no agenda and is only interested in the truth.  This is a naive position to take, as well as compelling us to ask the question regarding how the non-authority arrived at their conclusion? Generally, an authority on a given topic will have at least a methodology or sources to back up claims, whereas a person who is not an authority on a given topic generally relies on subjective opinions with no methodology we can critique.  

Yes, that is another sub-category.

The only thing I would caution against is the generalization in your last sentence. In our quest for the Truth, we should not assume (ad-hominem) too much about who is making the argument, but rather try to test the argument objectively, on its own merit.

Different sources use the same name to describe different fallacies. The sources I've seen describe "Appeal To Unqualified Authority" as appealing to someone who is not qualified, as where a physicist gives advice on a political issue (in which he is not an expert).  

The way you define it, the arguer is saying that something should be believed precisely because the source is not an "authority"; that "experts' should be distrusted in favor of non-authorities.  

If you have a source that defines it that way I'd be curious to see it as that would be a new one for me.

Another specific example could be:

Person A is a professor in virology with 30 years experience and a noble prize. He wants to give his opinion regarding a new viral outbreak.

Person B Does not want to consider Person's A's argument because he is not an authority figure or a representative of the ministry of health. Person B can also use all kinds of attempts at rationalization such as ad hominem attacks, special pleading etc. to try to justify why he doesn't want to listen to person A's argument. Maybe 'he is too old and going senile', or 'he is probably only seeking attention and relevancy' .

Arguments and evidence should be considered in an objective manner, regardless of the social rank or authority of the speaker.

This is a logical fallacy that drives me absolutely nuts so I'm grateful you've identified it. I'm simply mystified by how people instantly judge by source and qualifications. It's the content that counts. It's as if people can't trust their own critical thinking abilities to assess the validity of an argument and "peer-reviewed paper" is their response to everything. "Thousands of scientists ... " with no understanding that sages throughout history have reiterated including Giordano Bruno:

"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."

Thank you.

Yes they are close, but in the 'appeal to the unqualified/ignorant', a credential doesn't have to be involved. It can just be a social 'rank', or any title of authority. So if Mr. X [a 'non authority'] tries to claim something that is 'against' or contrary to what 'authorities' are saying, his argument will be suppressed, regardless of how many degrees he has.

“Lacking credentials” doesn’t necessarily refer to lacking a degree or license, it refers to lacking expertise in a subject.   For example, in the link I gave earlier, this example is given:

Alex: Maybe you shouldn’t let your kid play with that electrical socket.

Bob: If you’re not a parent, then don’t give me any parenting advice.

[To Ed F]

Another specific example could be:

Person A is a professor of virology with 30 years experience and a noble prize. He wants to give his opinion regarding a new viral outbreak.

Person B Does not want to consider Person's A's argument because he is not an authority figure or a representative of the ministry of health. Person B can also use all kinds of attempts at rationalization to excuse his authoritative and conformist stance. Faulty reasoning such as ad hominem attacks, special pleading etc. to try to justify why he doesn't want to listen to person A's argument: Maybe person A- ' is too old and going senile', or 'he is probably only seeking attention and relevancy' .

Arguments and evidence should be considered in an objective manner, regardless of the social rank or authority of the speaker.

Yeah, good answer. I was going to mention the Courtier's Reply.

Another example of this sub-category would be in an army setting- although in that case it is highly debatable if it is a fallacy, since it deals with an 'emergency' situation and not an intellectual debate, although even in an army (during a planning stage-not in the midst of battle), this is still a fallacy:

A strategic debate in army headquarters:

Officer A :'We should attack because X Y Z'

Soldier B:' I don't think this is the right time to attack, because of... '[interrupted]

Officer A: 'What rank are you? Do you see my rank? Then shut up- your opinion is irrelevant.'

Officer C: ' Wait, I still want to hear his opinion and evaluate its logic.'

Officer C saved the (logical-) day.

I disagree. There’s nothing fallacious about an army officer dismissing what a soldier or junior officer has to say just because of their rank.   Because of the nature of military operations, rank matters.  Not everyone’s opinion or arguments need be considered; having rank by definition means it’s your call.   it isn’t a debate; the ranking officer may be wrong but it’s their call. 

If an  outsider  where to say "Soldier B is wrong because their rank is lower than Officer A", then I can see a fallacy there.

But saying that it's Officer A's decision , not Soldier B's, because Officer A has a higher rank? That's accurate, IMO. In terms of who gets to  make  the decision, there's no truth/validity/soundness component.

1. I commented at the beginning that this is an extreme case- debatable. It is meant to outline the fallacy more clearly. The more this fallacy is committed, the more our society will be authoritative like for instance - the military.

2. Details - A. The soldier was in the room- meaning he was meant to be a part of the discussion. Maybe he is an expert is strategy, or very smart and creative or something else.

B. Of course a higher rank can outweigh a lower one in the army, but this was a debate in strategy, and the soldier was interrupted- his argument was not heard or weighed objectively because he was not an authority or not ranked high enough in the authority-ladder [this was used as an excuse by the officer]. If his argument would have been heard and considered objectively, and then "outranked"- no fallacy would be made.

[To Schmuel]

P.S.  Anyone who has been in the military probably knows that it is not necessarily 'a bastion of logic' :)

[see Heller's book- 'Catch 22' ]