The Unskilled Argument

Question

Two people X and Y. What is the name of the argument that falls under X not being as "good" as Y, but X knows Y is doing something wrong in a subject. But Y's primary counter-argument says that X isn't creditable because he isn't as good.

An easy example to get the point across, but isn't the subject I'm applying it to, would be weight lifting. I know a buddy is doing incorrect form, but he lifts more than me. Since he lifts more than me/has been doing it longer/has more experience in said subject, he feels like he doesn't need to take my advice and say that he's doing it incorrectly, even though he's doing the movement incorrectly. He would only take advice from someone stronger/more experienced. (I'm not looking for an answer to this such as you need to talk with him about getting hurt...ect..ect.. Just using this to paint the picture).

Is this a category for this argument? Does it have it's own title or wiki page?

Related: Is argument that two theories are equally valid because I am not an expert "argument ad ignoratum"

Answer 1

Depending on the details, you might classify it as involving an inappropriate "appeal to authority".

Answer 2

I found the answer using the direction Dave lead me too.

The answer I was looking for is called "ad hominem", which is short for "argumentum ad hominem".

Here's the wiki: Wiki

Answer 3

I wouldn't say this is ad hominem, although this kind of things is always rather subjective. Ad hominem is using something completely irrelevant about someone's character as an argument. As Wikipedia puts it:

responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

So, an exaggerated example would be:

Alice: I think people should do more volunteer work.
Bob: yeah, well, but you don't do any volunteer work yourself.

That Bob uses Alice's character as an argument is essential: this argument works only for Alice. In argumentation, it is important to abstract from things like this and make a generic argument, which can be reused when die hard volunteer Chris comes along making the same claim as Alice.

In your case, the fact that X is not as good as Y is not completely irrelevant. It is a fallacy, but I would rather say it's Y's fallacy to appeal to his own authority. Implicitly, he's not only saying that X is not good enough - he's also using that he's better.

As I see it (but again, there's room for different interpretations), ad hominem arguments are never generic, while appeals to authority are: Bob can't use the 'you don't do any volunteer work' against Chris. However, he can use the 'I'm an expert in this topic'. This is because ad hominem is an attack, and appeal to authority is a defense.

Answer 4

I tend to see this as a condition of the Halo Effect. Where X may have superior knowledge but Y's superior ability supplies a halo that obscures and bias the judgement of others.