Appealing to Opposing Authority
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Here's a type of argument I use sometimes. I wanted to get some opinions on it, see if people thought it was a strong or fallacious argument.
P1: A certain group of authority figures say that Y is true.
P2: These experts are part of a group that is biased against Y (ie, would benefit from Y being false, or people believing Y is false).
C: The opinion of these experts is credible and likely true.
For a couple of examples, pointing out that large oil companies publicly acknowledge that fossil fuels drive climate change, or that many Republicans and Trump-affiliates who worked on the 2020 election stated that the election was not rigged.
Comments on Question
Answers
2One role of intelligence agents is to infiltrate "hostile" organisations such as Wikileaks. In that endeavour, the infiltrator (in the role of leaker or whistleblower) will put forward information that speaks badly against the government authorising the infiltration.
For example, the film Collateral Murder allegedly showing soldiers in Apache helicopters shooting Iraqi journalists (supposedly mistaking the journalists' cameras for weapons), shows clear signs of being a faked artefact.
https://www.survivalistboards.com/threads/wikileaks-collateral-murder-video-a-fake.225339/
"I just stumbled across the Wikileaks video "Collateral Murder" and I have to say that I think it is a fake. The US soldiers are supposed to be firing a 30mm "cannon" at these people which in itself is creates a sense of sensationalism. Second I would think that there would be more devistation to the bodies were they to be really hit with a 30mm round. Considering that it is an anti-armor/anti-aircraft/anti-material/anti-bunker round it is going to do major damage when it hits someone. For those who don't know the size difference between something like a 9mm to a 50 cal -> 20mm -> 30mm there is a MASSIVE difference. I would think it would take off limbs or even worse were it to hit someone. JMO. Can anyone chime in?
Oh, a lot of the backgound talk like the rude comments, laughs etc sounded out of place as well."
An essential tool in the lens one applies to analysis of power is to recognise that power has no problem "looking bad". "Looking bad" works very well for power in certain situations and the notion that power always aims to make itself look good is fallacious in the extreme.
If a particular group of scholars would benefit by Y being true…
But at the and same time are biased against Y being false…
Then Y is true?
Um, seems tautological…
Exempli gratia:
P1: The consensus of modern scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure.
P2: These modern scholars are all members of an academic establishment that prohibits teaching Jesus mythicism in their curriculums.
C: Ergo, Jesus is a historical figure
Yikes!
Is this what you’re claiming? What am I missing?
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
'P1: A certain group of authority figures say that Y is true.
P2: These experts are part of a group that is biased against Y (ie, would benefit from Y being false, or people believing Y is false).'
These statements relate to public perception, and not necessarily reality. In all likelihood a higher level of financial power that owns both oil companies and the media that tells us what they do and think is manipulating that perception to effect a wider plan of energy interdependence in the future, much more profitable and controlling than oil ever was, and fully backed by government decree. Climate change is merely the boogey man to drive change, like terrorists are when you want to bomb some innocent country and make yourself look like a hero.
That would be my response as a professional conspiracy theorist.