This man who says he’s an authority — and may actually be — has still not provided an argument about why we should consider this a Nazi salute.
Therefore it is fallacious to believe it to have been “proven”.
Right, but he is not claiming that is the only argument available. How is providing credentials with his statement irrational?
We are not having a conversation with the man, it’s a social media post with a character limit. You would have to assume that he cannot provide additional evidence if you want to label this as a logical fallacy.
This is why statements made outside of the courts ability to directly question as labeled as hearsay, not a fallacy. It very well may be true, and can provide toward the body of evidence. However, we’re not able to question the witness to further understand their validity. We weren’t arguing if it’s a good source of certainty, we arguing if it is outside of reason.
The appeal to authority is basically the opposite of the ad hominem fallacy.
It is the acceptance of a claim because of the credentials of the person who said it.
It’s a reasonable heuristic for deciding which claims to trust, but it is not a substitute for logical argumentation.
This man who says he’s an authority — and may actually be — has still not provided an argument about why we should consider this a Nazi salute.
Therefore it is fallacious to believe it to have been “proven”.
Again trusting authority is a decent heuristic, but it’s not a source of certainty.
If this expert were to provide some evidence and reasoning, then it would be less fallacious to consider the question closed based on his testimony.
Right, but he is not claiming that is the only argument available. How is providing credentials with his statement irrational?
We are not having a conversation with the man, it’s a social media post with a character limit. You would have to assume that he cannot provide additional evidence if you want to label this as a logical fallacy.
This is why statements made outside of the courts ability to directly question as labeled as hearsay, not a fallacy. It very well may be true, and can provide toward the body of evidence. However, we’re not able to question the witness to further understand their validity. We weren’t arguing if it’s a good source of certainty, we arguing if it is outside of reason.