Quote:That isn't an appeal to authority fallacy. It's citing an expert that has more on her health than we do.


And I'm strongly anti-Hillary.



Citing the opinion of the provider that provides Hillary care isn't an appeal to authority fallacy, though, and you look silly saying that.

 

No?

 

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) (Hillary's Doctor) an authority on subject S (Hillary's Health).
   
2. Person A (Hillary's Doctor) makes claim C (She is totally fine) about subject S (Hillary's Health).
   
3. Therefore, C is true.
   

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...ority.html

 

*edit* adding on statement 4 on what makes it a significantly weak argument and therefor fallacious:

 

4. The person in question is not significantly biased.

 

"Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice. "

 

Which is why I called for an independent physical. Even Donald Trump had his doctor release a medical statement, but without an independent physical I wouldn't give it any credibility.

---