authorityclaims

Authority claims are statements asserted as true because they originate from a person, institution, or document regarded as an authority in a given domain. In argumentation, such claims rely on the credibility of the source rather than on the direct evidence presented within the argument. The term covers explicit references like “According to the World Health Organization, …” as well as implicit ones where status or credentials imply truth.

Authorities can be individuals (experts, clinicians, scientists), organizations (regulatory agencies, professional associations), or texts (official reports, guidelines). A legitimate authority claim depends on relevant expertise, current consensus, and transparent reasoning. However, the mere status of an authority does not guarantee correctness; experts can err, and authorities may be biased or limited by conflicts of interest or scope.

Evaluation of authority claims involves several considerations: the authority’s credentials and relevance to the topic; the independence and quality of supporting evidence; whether there is consensus or uncertainty in the field; and any potential biases or conflicts of interest. It is important to distinguish strong, evidence-based authority claims from fallacious appeals that substitute authority for argument.

Authority claims are common in science, medicine, law, and public policy, where guidelines, peer-reviewed research, and regulatory rulings are cited to support decisions. Critics emphasize critical scrutiny of sources, verification of data, and preference for direct evidence when possible. The concept intersects with epistemology’s notion of epistemic authority and ethos in rhetoric.