> An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.
Calling it a fallacy when there's an actual authority is the part that's incorrect. It's no longer a fallacy when the appeal to authority (argument from authority) involves an actual authority.
Why would you do that? The citations are there for a reason.
Several reasons. One of which would be to avoid using the article author's background as part of an argument against the content of the article. Because that would be an ad hominem.
Appeal to authority means accepting what an authority says on the merit of the entity being an authority, and not on the validity of the statement itself.
"It's no longer a fallacy when the appeal to authority (argument from authority) involves an actual authority."
is not true.
The right thing to say would have been "It is no longer a fallacy when the authority making the claim provides enough convincing evidence to make the claim valid, with or without an authority", if that's indeed what you meant to say.
But that's not what you said, and so I stand by my assertion that what you said is not true.
We have the original post in this thread of interest saying (paraphrasing): "The article has no substance, so the claim is it making could be made by anyone. The article is not useful and the claim is not substantiated".
Then we have a reply: "Elcomsoft is an authority on the topic so their claim should be stronger than if anyone else made it".
This is where I said it looks close to an appeal to authority.
But you then came in and said "when there's an actual authority there is no longer an appeal to authority".
Which is not true.
I mean, how can there be an appeal to authority with no authority? That's like saying there's a car accident with no car.
