Instant Experts & False Authorities are such remarkable people: "They get so great a return of conclusion from the most trifling input of fact" (with thanks to Mark Twain).

[The term False Authority has been around a very long time. The term False Authority "Syndrome" was probably coined by Rob Rosenberger, a genuine authority on computer viruses. Mr Rosenberger first used the term "False Authority Syndrome" in his paper on Computer Virus Myths that appeared in the Janet Endrijonas 1995 book on "Data Security" (see reference list, bottom).]

         However, let's be totally fair in our attribution efforts: In spirt, intent, and meaning, "false authority" is very close if not identical to the meaning of "false prophet" way back when. A false prophet was one who was dishonest, unreliable, and invalid in much of what he said. In fact, consider these terms and their biblical reference: (a) false prophets (Matthew 7:13-23); (b) false teachers (e.g., 2nd Peter 2:1-22); and (c) false apostles (viz., 2nd Corinthians 11:12-13). Without question and with correct attribution, the term false authority pre-dates most of us!

"With Malice Toward None" -- Abe Lincoln

Brief Review

This is the one -- perhaps the only! -- website that directly and honestly addresses the silent conspiracy of ignorance (click, for that webpage on this site). Here on this website is where research and proof replace fiction and dogma; where science resolutely replaces myth; where truth and fact replace fraud and fantasy. Here on this webpage is where we also set forth 15 of the most prominent deceptive arguments False Authorities rely on to convince unwitting listeners to believe what they otherwise wouldn't. Any questions?

"Modern democracies rely on two institutions to imbue citizens with the qualities needed for public discussion at an acceptable level: The school (for reason and deliberation); and the university (for the flowering of those capacities)....but what do our schools and universities actually teach about argument?"

      Source: Fullinwider, R.K. (1993). "With malice toward none; with charity for all": Some reflections on the ethics of argument. Journal of Education, 175, 99-114.

The False Authority Thesis

Assumed knowledge undetected is preferable to knowledge acquired and detected.

 

For the intellectually lazy, it is far easier and thus preferable to assume that something is true.

What people recognize they don't know can be used to persuade them to act in the interest of what others know not to be true.

The False Authority Premise

The syllogism:

         The rate of information onslaught is unmanageable -- for everyone.

         Since everyone knows little, a few can pretend to know lots.

         Therefore, a few good liars spreading pseudo-knowledge (knowledge assumed rather than learned) can convince a lot of truthful believers that wrong is right, rhetoric is research, opinion is fact.

LISTEN closely to spoken rhetoric!

We have explained elsewhere (click) that the False Authority and the Instant Expert engage in easily defined behaviors. The information on this specific page focuses exclusively on the devious argument tactics False Authorities employ to deceive unsuspecting listeners.

Accordingly, this page offers you the following information: (1) A summary of the 15 more prominent deceptive arguments used by False Authorities. (2) A definition of what a fallacy is. (3) A detailed description (with multiple examples) of each of the 15 featured fallacies. (4) A checklist that can be cut-and-pasted and then printed out so you can quickly identify a False Authority and the tactic(s) being used to mislead you. (5) Yet another plea for you to download Biblio-Refs, the #1 False Authority battler on the Internet. Enjoy the information herein presented and have a fine False Authority-free day!

 

FALLACIES of the False Authority: Outline/Summary "The great snare of thought is uncritical acceptance of irrational assumptions." -- Will Durant Unprovable Fallacy: if not proven false, conclusion is true. False Contingency: from a small sample to a large 'if...then' conclusion. False Dilemma: only 2 choices allowed. False Association: two totally unrelated assertions define the conclusion. Personal Attack: the person rather than the argument is attacked. Circumstantial Personal Attack: attack the circumstances/predicament of the person rather than the argument. Hypocritical Personal Attack: the attacker has the same attribute as the person attacked. Testimonial Fallacy: well known figures incorrectly used in absentia to support a conclusion. Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named Denying-doer: conclusion supported despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Cause-Effect/Post Hoc: because one event follows another, it necessarily either caused or was cause by the other. Non sequitur: conclusion defended, although assertions do not support it. False Analogy: two relevantly dissimilar events used to support a conclusion. Circular Reasoning: conclusion is assumed by the premises. Fallacy of Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have something in common, the whole includes that commonality.   FALLACY: Definition "Is the failure to provide needed genuine information as destructive as successfully providing unneeded false information?" Any argument in which statements fail to support the conclusion is a fallacious argument. (Conversely, any argument in which the conclusion fails to support assertions is fallacious.) When someone makes a statement, there are three outcomes in your mind: (1) The conclusion makes sense. (2) There is something you must have missed. (3) The person sounds fruity as an overripe fruit cake! If you find yourself moving in the direction of outcome #3, then you probably have encountered a False Authority employing a fallacy of one sort or another. There are many types of fallacies and just as many reasons for using them. Both are enumerated below. Remember, False Authorities argue cleverly. They invoke subtle strategies and depend on misleading statements -- fallacious/false assertions -- to persuade you the point, the conclusion they are getting at has merit. You just know you have encountered a specious argument when you say to yourself: "What does that mean?" "That doesn't make sense!" "What's he talking about?!" "She's gotta be joking!?" "He's not making sense."   FALLACY TRICKS FALLACY TERM "Which fallacy is your False Authority...?" EXPLANATION (1) Unprovability Fallacy Definition: False Authorities assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, False Authorities may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (To wit: Because something is not known, it's deemed true [or false].) Examples: * Since you cannot prove Mitch did not lie, he must have lied. * Linda Tripp says she did not want to unseat Clinton; but since she has not proved it, it must be false. * Since scientists cannot prove there is no "intelligent life out there," there probably is. * "You can't prove that the severely handicapped and gifted can't learn 'better' together in the same class!" * John said he is honest; but he did not prove it, so it must be false. * Liz said that she is off drugs; she has not proved it, so it must be false. * I assert I saw Mark McGwire hit #70; since you have not proved I didn't, I did see the home run! (2) False Contingency Fallacy           (if...then error)          Over-Generalization      "Slippery Slope" Definition: False Authorities claim that one (or precious few!) instance supports a broad (universal) conclusion. Conversely, False Authorities may assert that a broad summary conclusion is correct, "because it happened to me" (or a very small group). Examples: * "It happened to me! It will happen to you all too!" * "She 'recovered' from autism, so anyone can!" * "The cops killed that defenseless man; everyone is now fair game!" * "Hey! You can't stifle pornography on the 'Net! Eventually, everything 'he' dislikes will be censored!" * "Smoking marijuana inevitably leads to 'hard drug' addiction." * "If I let you do it, I must let everyone do it." * "Facilitated Communication 'works' for her; it will work with most people." * "If you do that, you will never ever be able to resist it again!" (3) False Dilemma Fallacy          Hobson's Choice          Either-Or Argument Definition: False Authorities offer only two choices when in fact there are more! Conversely, False Authorities may assert that you are incorrect if you suggest there are alternatives to his/her two options in an argument. Examples: * "Hey, you're either believe in God or you don't." (Hmmm, agnostics don't count?) * "Yo! Put up or shut up!" (Hmmm, what about counselling? [humor]) * "Hey, take it or leave it!" * As Hobson classically stated: "You may buy any horse here in my barn as long as it is that one!" -- as he points to a specific horse. * "You either support me or I'll quit!" * "Trick or Treat!" (4) False Association Fallacy Definition: False Authorities associate two totally unrelated statements and claim they support the asserted conclusion. (To agree with one statement does not mean you must agree wtih the other statement -- though of course the False Authority will expect you to agree with both statements!) Examples: * "You must support the candidate and the God-given right of voters to shun the voting booth." * "Do you endorse the KKK and the right to bear arms?" * "There is nothing wrong with you going to church and fighting against public prayer." * "Have you stopped beating your live-in partner?" (Do you beat your partner? Have you stopped?) * "Heck, yes and no!" * "You're as bad as the rest of them!" * "Don't fret about it not making any sense; it does." (5) Abusive Personal Attack Fallacy Definition: False Authorities verbally attack the person rather than the argument. ("If you can't attack the facts or the logic, attack the person.") Examples: * "Hey, you're an ex con. You can't even vote, so shut up!" * "Whew! Check the mirror before you come in here!" * "Hey, who dressed you?!" * "Stutterers should not be allowed to give speeches." * "Sorry, we don't like you. Leave!" * "You don't like my attitude? Then you're a racist!" (6) Circumstantial Personal Attack Fallacy Definition: False Authorities verbally attack circumstances associated with the person. Examples: * "Heck, you don't care: You live in the suburbs!" * "How would you know? You don't have an autistic child!" * "What do you know about our plight? You ain't one of us!" * "The only reason you voted against the school tax increase is because you don't have kids!" * "I don't care if you are a physician! You're a man. What could you know about pregnancy?!" * "Easy for you to say: You have rich parents." * "Don't tell me how to act! You're a bloody ex con!" (7) Hypocritical Personal Attack Fallacy      ("tu quoque" fallacy) Definition: The False Authority possesses the same trait or behavior singled out for attack. Examples: * "You shouldn't be drinking in the first place!" (Of course, the False Authority making the statement is a known alcohol abuser.)" * "Don't smoke!" (The arguer then ducks out for a sneak puff during a coffee break.) * "I love all minorities, including my own!" (...says the PLO member or Serb militiaman.) * "A school principal must enjoy kids, by definition." (...says the school principal who arrives at the office barely on time, leaves early, seldom enters the classroom, never visits the lunchroom, and only once in ten years joined any class on a bus trip.) * "I hate violence!" (...says the street gang leader.) * "Education is key!" (...says the high-school dropout who has rejected several offers and options to re-start his schooling.) (8) Testimonial Fallacy Definition: False Authorities incorrectly invoke the backing of well-known public figures to support a conclusion. (Yes, it is of course valid to enlist/invoke/ cite a Genuine Authority (click); however, it is fallacious to do so under the following three conditions: (1) When there is wide disagreement among experts in the field. (2) When the Authority is a False Authority; that is, is not qualified or recognized as an expert in the field at issue. (3) When the Genuine Authority was not being serious.) Examples: * "Doug Biklen believes in facilitated communication; you should therefore use it with your students." (There is wide disagreement, however; and he is in a fast shrinking and thankfully barely perceptible minority of fantasy-huggers who do still "believe".) * "Mrs Smith says that autistics can 'recover.' She should know, since she has an autistic son." (But is she a genuine authority in the field? Also, there is wide disagreement [with Mrs Smith part of a barely measureable minority] on the subject of whether correctly diagnosed autistic children can in fact "recover.") * "The principal says that computers don't teach! Only teachers teach!" (Perhaps, but is the principal a recognized/genuine authority on the subject?) * "Yes, if you believe in me, you will find nirvana." (The Buddist-from-the-East answering a question regarding Buddist Priests and worshipers.) (9)Anonymous Authority Fallacy Definition: "Unnamed sources" are used to justify a conclusion. Examples: * "Everybody knows that you've been treatin' me bad..." -- Beatles. Come on, blokes! Do you really mean everyone? * "The reporter said the informant knows the serial killer and he will strike tonight." (... without details, is this a hoax to ambush or hassle innocent people?) * "Don't smoke! The government says so!" (...but is he/she/it a Genuine Authority?) * "Experts agree that he is autistic." (...which expert? what test battery? ...) * "Economists predicted Asia would prosper in the late 1990s." (...no wonder they wanted to be anonymous!) * "The data supports the validity of probing repressed memories." (...what data, specifically.) * "The research shows that teacher unions support instructional accountability." (...fine, but that research needs to be seen to be believed!) (10) Denying-doer Fallacy Definition: False Authorities defend a conclusion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Examples: * "The world is flat." * "Correctly diagnosed autistic children can "recover." * "Facilitated Communication 'works'." * "Everyone outside my social group is a racist." * "Don't blame me for my kid's truancy: It's the school's fault, not the parents'!" * "Crime is a social problem exclusively; of course it has nothing to do with incompetent parenting. Nothing at all!" * "The death penalty has no impact on the recidivism rate." * "It is never my fault. Never!" (11) Cause-Effect Fallacy      (Post-hoc fallacy)      "Superstitious            Conditioning" Definition: False Authorities argue that because one event follows another, it caused the other or was caused by the other. ('B' follows 'A'; thus, 'B' was necessarily caused by 'A' or 'A' caused 'B'.) Examples: * "The student behaved properly because I walked into the room." * Cigarettes killed the cancer-ridden 90 year old man, though he stopped smoking decades ago, just before he began a 50 year career working deep in the coal mines. * Because it's a full moon, the students (and staff!) are acting really strange! * "You became addicted to cocaine because you started out smoking marijuana." * "I am disadvantaged because my Swedish ancestors were sea warriors." * Computers were introduced into a school. Soon thereafter, student achievement scores improved. The computers caused the improvement." (True, computers may have contributed to the improvement, but perhaps an influx of new teachers, a no-nonsense new principal, the enrollment of dozens of "better" students .... and a host of factors perhaps combined to produced the favorable scholastic outcome.) * "Because the President is the best the country ever had, the economy improved." (The reverse, incidentally, is more often the argued case!) * The low-functioning speech/language impaired severely mentally handicapped student keeps banging his head because he wants to do something else. (It could be due to a throbbing headache, earache, toothache, sore gums, or headsore of course.) (12) Non-sequitur Fallacy Definition: False Authorities defend a conclusion, although their own assertions do not support it. Examples: * The man was acquitted of the crime because he is innocent. (Not so: acquittal has nothing to do with innocence; it has everything to do with insufficient evidence to allow a conclusion "beyond reasonable doubt.") * "Yo! I only drink and do drugs in order to score with the blokettes!" * The CEO fired the attractive secretary not because she spurned his repeated advances but because her 1990 computer kept crashing. * The student quit school because he said he disliked the cafeteria food. * "Hey! The only reason my students are doing poorly today is because of the asbestos in the ceiling." (13) False Analogy Fallacy Definition: False Authorities use two relevantly dissimilar events to support a conclusion. Examples: * Kids are like chattel. Thus they are property to be bought and sold on the open market. (Not so, of course: The relevant issue is ownership vs individual freedom.) * "It's 'inhumane' to put animals to death that way." (Hmm, animals are humans?) * School is like business and must thus worry about minimizing costs and maximizing revenues. (Not so, of course: The relevant issue is outcome objectives [profit vs learning achievement].) * Women are like men. Hence, they must lift the same weight and so exactly the same work. (Not so, of course: One relevant issue is dissimilar muscle tissue.) * "Love is just a four letter word" (Bobby Dylan). (Not so, we hope: The relevant issue is emotion! -- and not all four letter words involve emotion.) *"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" (Kristofferson). (Not so, though subtle: One relevant issue is individual rights -- freedom yes; lack of it and the rights disappear. Hence, non-comparable analogy.) *The GNP of Andorra (small country in Pyrenees Mts between France/Spain) can not be compared to the GNP of the United States. There are not enough similar attributes to allow comparison. *The quality of a doctorate from a mail-order college probably should not be compared to a doctorate from, say, a top-ten university in America. Only False Authorities could find sufficient similar aspects to warrant such a comparison. *The more obviously dissimilar two entities, the higher the probability of committing a false analogy fallacy if comparing them. (14) Circular Reasoning Fallacy      "Begging the Question" Definition: False Authorities use the conclusion as part of the reasoning. Assertions assume a foregone conclusion. Examples: * Kids are bad because they are kids. * He abuses women because men are women-abusers. * That book is existential if and only if it deals with existentialsim. (...but we'd have to know what existentialism is in the first place to determine whether the book is existential!) (15) Fallacy of Composition Definition: False Authorities use the argument that, because the attributes of the parts of a whole have something in common, the whole has that common property as well. Examples: * America is a free country. Thus, you are free. * That specific city college is easy. Thus, you will pass all your coursework. * Everyone in that ethnic group has a specific reputation. Hence, so does he! * The hippie generation did more damage to the environment then any generation before or since. Hence, hippies constitute the most dangerous generation known to man. * Northwestern University is a great academic school. Thus, every graduate of NU is great. * Everyone knows that New York is very safe these days. Thus, you will be safe. It's not only what False Authorities know that's false that promotes ignorance .... it's also their false way of arguing!   "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." -- Mark Twain False Authority: FALLACY CHECKLIST "The great snare of thought is uncritical acceptance of irrational assumptions." -- Will Durant Copy & Paste this CHECKLIST into an ASCII Word Processor. Which WP? TextPad, of course. It is the best on the market and less than $US30. For a list of the Best Software for your most common, everyday, repetitive tasks, Click!. Print out the checklist and use it! When you hear statements, assertions, arguments, and conclusions that don't make sense, you are listening to a False Authority. This checklist will help you identify which deceptive argument tactic is being employed. This checklist will help you understand why so many otherwise intelligent adults get mislead by the rhetoric of False Authorities. │ => 1. Unprovable Fallacy: if not proven false, conclusion is true. │ => 2. False Contingency: from a small sample to a large 'if...then' conclusion │ => 3. False Dilemma: only 2 choices allowed. │ => 4. False Association: two totally unrelated assertions define the conclusion. │ => 5. Personal Attack: the person rather than the argument is attacked │ => 6. Circumstantial Personal Attack: attack the circumstances/predicament of the person rather than the argument. │ => 7. Hypocritical Personal Attack: the attacker has the same attribute as the person attacked │ => 8. Testimonial Fallacy: well known figures incorrectly used in absentia to support a conclusion. │ => 9. Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named. │ => 10. Denying-doer: conclusion supported despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. │ => 11. Cause-Effect/Post Hoc: because one event follows another, it necessarily either caused or was cause by the other. │ => 12. Non sequitur: conclusion defended, although assertions do not support it. │ => 13. False Analogy: two relevantly dissimilar events used to support a conclusion. │ => 14. Circular Reasoning: conclusion is assumed by the premises. │ => 15. Fallacy of Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have something in common, the whole includes that commonality. Biblio-Refs Biblio-Refs leads the fight against False Authorities. Biblio-Refs attacks, through top-level research findings in 50 curriculum areas, the ignorance of False Authority and the fallacies they endorse. Enjoy this sample reference set -- and your day! Baldwin, J.F. (Ed.). (1996). Fuzzy logic. New York: Wiley. Dawes, R.M. (1988). Rational choice in an uncertain world. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Glazer, H.I., & Weiss, J.M. (1976). Long-term and transitory interference effect: An alternative to learned helplessness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 191-201. Graham, I.J., & Jones, P.L. (1988). Expert systems: Knowledge, uncertainty and decision. New York: Chapman & Hall. Kihlstrom, J.F. (1984). A fact is a fact is a fact. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 243-244. Levine, D.S. (1992). Common sense and common nonsense. New York: Oxford University Press. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75-98. Loftus, E.F. & Klinger, M.R. (1992). Is the unconscious smart or dumb? American Psychologist, 47, 761-765. Macedo, D.P. (1993). Literacy for stupidification: The pedagogy of big lies. Harvard Educational Review, 63, 183-206. Skarda, C., & Freeman, W.J. (1987). How brains make chaos in order to make sense of the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 161-173. Snyder, M. (1983). Seek and ye shall find: Testing hypotheses about other people. In E. Higgins, C. Herman, & M. Hanna (Eds.), Social cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tuchman, B. (1984). The march of folly. New York: Knopf. Tuke, D.H. (1894). Imperative ideas. Brain, 17, 179-197. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131. Viggiano, J. (1981). Ignorance as handicap. Asha, 23, 551-552.    Reminder: Please consider downloading    Biblio-Refs -- THE practical Assistant.   Home | About | Products | Workshops | Pricing For more information, please mail: steppec@aol.com Copyright © 1995-2001 Dr Charles Hedbring. All rights reserved worldwide (and beyond!).