Typically, the ad verecundiam fallacy pertains to an appeal to an unqualified authority--someone who's background and knowledge do not support a legitimate claim of expertise.
However, even among "qualified" authorities, assertions must be supported by evidence, or they are merely opinions, and thus should be given the least evidentiary w…
Typically, the ad verecundiam fallacy pertains to an appeal to an unqualified authority--someone who's background and knowledge do not support a legitimate claim of expertise.
However, even among "qualified" authorities, assertions must be supported by evidence, or they are merely opinions, and thus should be given the least evidentiary weight.
This is the conclusion of "experts", from a 2018 study in the BMJ assessing the role of "expert opinion" in clinical practice guidelines.
Thus, while not a true ad verecundiam fallacy, reliance on the unsupported opinion even of a qualified authority on a subject is still a logical fallacy of weak induction.
Any appeal to authority is thus logical fallacy rather than logical argument.
Typically, the ad verecundiam fallacy pertains to an appeal to an unqualified authority--someone who's background and knowledge do not support a legitimate claim of expertise.
However, even among "qualified" authorities, assertions must be supported by evidence, or they are merely opinions, and thus should be given the least evidentiary weight.
This is the conclusion of "experts", from a 2018 study in the BMJ assessing the role of "expert opinion" in clinical practice guidelines.
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/22/5/164
Thus, while not a true ad verecundiam fallacy, reliance on the unsupported opinion even of a qualified authority on a subject is still a logical fallacy of weak induction.
Any appeal to authority is thus logical fallacy rather than logical argument.