2 added 37 characters in body
source | link

This paper is mainly about the modern use of the term, but also includes a section on (an interpretation of) Locke's original construction. One thing to keep in mind is that Locke's time was much less egalitarian than much of the world today. My current translation is as "argument to deference" -- in hierarchical societies people should (as a moral/social imperative) defer to people of higher station. Locke was criticizing this as mode of reasoning.

Though some contemporary societies don't have the same kind of explicit class structures, we can still fall prey to this kind of thinking. A good contemporary example is the influence that some celebrities have on some issues. Whether or not the celebrity has in fact cultivated expertise on some subject, if your (or your friends') reason for paying heed to their positions is based more on the sense of admiration than on their actual competence, you could be falling prey to the fallacy.

I suspect that the interpretation of this term has morphed over the last 300 years in this context of increasing egalitarianism, especially in the cultures with ties to England, so that now there aren't obvious cases of arguments relying on social (political/cultural) standing. However, there is still the need to identify that sometimes just because a supposed authorities say so, doesn't make it true, hence the inclusion of "unqualified""unqualified authority" in most modern discussions.

This paper is mainly about the modern use of the term, but also includes a section on (an interpretation of) Locke's original construction. One thing to keep in mind is that Locke's time was much less egalitarian than much of the world today. My current translation is as "argument to deference" -- in hierarchical societies people should (as a moral/social imperative) defer to people of higher station. Locke was criticizing this as mode of reasoning.

Though some contemporary societies don't have the same kind of explicit class structures, we can still fall prey to this kind of thinking. A good contemporary example is the influence that some celebrities have on some issues. Whether or not the celebrity has in fact cultivated expertise on some subject, if your (or your friends') reason for paying heed to their positions is based more on the sense of admiration than on their actual competence, you could be falling prey to the fallacy.

I suspect that the interpretation of this term has morphed over the last 300 years in this context of increasing egalitarianism, especially in the cultures with ties to England, so that now there aren't obvious cases of arguments relying on social (political/cultural) standing. However, there is still the need to identify that sometimes just because a supposed authorities say so, doesn't make it true, hence the inclusion of "unqualified".

This paper is mainly about the modern use of the term, but also includes a section on (an interpretation of) Locke's original construction. One thing to keep in mind is that Locke's time was much less egalitarian than much of the world today. My current translation is as "argument to deference" -- in hierarchical societies people should (as a moral/social imperative) defer to people of higher station. Locke was criticizing this as mode of reasoning.

Though some contemporary societies don't have the same kind of explicit class structures, we can still fall prey to this kind of thinking. A good contemporary example is the influence that some celebrities have on some issues. Whether or not the celebrity has in fact cultivated expertise on some subject, if your (or your friends') reason for paying heed to their positions is based more on the sense of admiration than on their actual competence, you could be falling prey to the fallacy.

I suspect that the interpretation of this term has morphed over the last 300 years in this context of increasing egalitarianism, especially in the cultures with ties to England, so that now there aren't obvious cases of arguments relying on social (political/cultural) standing. However, there is still the need to identify that sometimes just because a supposed authorities say so, doesn't make it true, hence the inclusion of "unqualified authority" in most modern discussions.

1
source | link

This paper is mainly about the modern use of the term, but also includes a section on (an interpretation of) Locke's original construction. One thing to keep in mind is that Locke's time was much less egalitarian than much of the world today. My current translation is as "argument to deference" -- in hierarchical societies people should (as a moral/social imperative) defer to people of higher station. Locke was criticizing this as mode of reasoning.

Though some contemporary societies don't have the same kind of explicit class structures, we can still fall prey to this kind of thinking. A good contemporary example is the influence that some celebrities have on some issues. Whether or not the celebrity has in fact cultivated expertise on some subject, if your (or your friends') reason for paying heed to their positions is based more on the sense of admiration than on their actual competence, you could be falling prey to the fallacy.

I suspect that the interpretation of this term has morphed over the last 300 years in this context of increasing egalitarianism, especially in the cultures with ties to England, so that now there aren't obvious cases of arguments relying on social (political/cultural) standing. However, there is still the need to identify that sometimes just because a supposed authorities say so, doesn't make it true, hence the inclusion of "unqualified".