New Sub-Category of the Ad-Hominem Fallacy: Appeal to the Unqualified Person
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Appeal to the Unqualified Person : A logical fallacy where [opposite to the Appeal to Authority fallacy]- instead of accepting an argument because it comes from “authority”, in this fallacy, the argument is rejected [refused to be heard or weighed objectively] because the speaker of the argument is supposedly unqualified or not an authority on the matter.
Example A:
Carson: 'I believe there is evidence that DDT is detrimental to people's health. There are studies that show".. [Interrupted]
White-Stevens: 'Are you a Chemist? Do you have a degree in medicine? You are not an expert or authority on the matter. You should keep your opinions to yourself.'
Explanation: While Carson is 'just' a marine biologist and environmental activist, she has the right skills and moral aptitude, which give her a unique perspective on this matter. Regardless, her theory, logical argument, and evidence, which she wants to present, should be considered objectively, regardless of her societal 'rank' and place of 'authority'.
Example B:
Two parents arguing about an education issue with their child:
Parent A: "I think we should let Rachel read foreign press and news articles if she want to. The logic behind this is..." [Interrupted]
Parent B: 'Are you a teacher? do you have a doctorate in education?? The ministry of education says that it is detrimental for our children to be exposed to information outside the state run internet firewall. They say it hurts moral and social-cohesion and that they will be exposed to lies and conspiracy theories about our great government and leaders. They are the authorities on this, while you are no authority, so there is no point in hearing your argument about this matter.'
Explanation: While parent A is not a so-called 'governmental authority' in this matter, he has a logical argument to make, which should be heard and weighed in an objective manner. This fallacy activates social-psychological tendencies [indoctrination, group think etc.] in order to remove 'dissenting' arguments and voices, and is often used to discredit minority or "unwanted" opinions.
Exception: If there is a critical time constraint- in an emergency[as opposed to an intellectual argument], where there is no time to hear multiple opinions , it is acceptable and practical to pick and choose the ones you think are experts on the matter.
Example: During a medical operation, if the cleaning person wants to give their advice on how to proceeded with the operation, the doctors can refuse to hear his/her opinion, because there is not enough time and it is a life and death emergency.
*People should be aware of these emergency-power situations, because they have potential to be abused.
Any thoughts?
*[If you are not an expert/authority on this issue do not bother to comment- your post will be deleted (not really- this is another example of the fallacy)].
Comments on Question
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.
Answers
1This is generally known as the Credentials Fallacy, which as you suggest, is a sub-category of Ad Hominem. Here's a website that discussed this: https://effectiviology.com/credentials-fallacy/
When this is used in the context of a critic not having credentials to criticize, it's called Courtier's Reply. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
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."