Argument from authority

<h2 id="forms">Forms</h2>
<h3>Deductive</h3>
This argument is a form of <a href="/facts/Genetic_fallacy/7EecBAcj">genetic fallacy</a>; in which the conclusion about the validity of a statement is justified by appealing to the characteristics of the person who is speaking, such as also in the <a href="/facts/Ad_hominem/Nosco0bG">ad hominem</a> fallacy.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:20" href="#fn:20">20</a> For this argument, Locke coined the term argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to shamefacedness/modesty) because it appeals to the fear of humiliation by appearing disrespectful to a particular authority.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:21" href="#fn:21">21</a>
This qualification as a logical fallacy implies that this argument is invalid when using the deductive method, and therefore it cannot be presented as infallible.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:22" href="#fn:22">22</a> In other words, it is logically invalid to prove a claim is true simply because an authority has said it. The explanation is: authorities can be wrong, and the only way of logically proving a claim is providing real evidence or a valid logical deduction of the claim from the evidence.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:23" href="#fn:23">23</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:24" href="#fn:24">24</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:25" href="#fn:25">25</a>

<h3>Inductive</h3>
When used in the inductive method, which implies the conclusions can not be proven with certainty,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:26" href="#fn:26">26</a> this argument can be considered a <a href="/facts/Inductive_argument/EJ992JJ9">inductive argument</a> the general form of this type of argument is:

Person(s) A claims that X is true.
Person(s) A is an expert in the field concerning X.
Therefore, X should be believed.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:27" href="#fn:27">27</a>

Inductively it can be used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the cited authority in the given context.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:28" href="#fn:28">28</a>

<h4>Related logical fallacies</h4>
It is also a fallacious <a href="/facts/Ad_hominem/Nosco0bG">ad hominem</a> argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:29" href="#fn:29">29</a> Other related fallacious arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. For instance, the <a href="/facts/Appeal_to_poverty/W9A57Mum">appeal to poverty</a> is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:30" href="#fn:30">30</a> When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is an "appeal to the common man".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:31" href="#fn:31">31</a>

<h2 id="use-in-science">Use in science</h2>
Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:32" href="#fn:32">32</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:33" href="#fn:33">33</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:34" href="#fn:34">34</a> as <a href="/facts/Authority_(sociology)/EPFGueUT">authority</a> has no place in science.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:35" href="#fn:35">35</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:36" href="#fn:36">36</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:37" href="#fn:37">37</a> <a href="/facts/Carl_Sagan/HhdhTggo">Carl Sagan</a> wrote of arguments from authority: "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.' ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:38" href="#fn:38">38</a> 
One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:39" href="#fn:39">39</a> when leading American zoologist <a href="/facts/Theophilus_Painter/LnBpd6SM">Theophilus Painter</a> declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:40" href="#fn:40">40</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:41" href="#fn:41">41</a> that humans had 24 pairs of <a href="/facts/Chromosomes/FRGf11FC">chromosomes</a>. From the 1920s until 1956,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:42" href="#fn:42">42</a> scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:43" href="#fn:43">43</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:44" href="#fn:44">44</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:45" href="#fn:45">45</a> despite subsequent counts totaling the <a href="/facts/Chromosome/FRGf11FC">correct number</a> of 23.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:46" href="#fn:46">46</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:47" href="#fn:47">47</a> Even textbooks<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:48" href="#fn:48">48</a> with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:49" href="#fn:49">49</a> based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:50" href="#fn:50">50</a>
This seemingly established number generated <a href="/facts/Confirmation_bias/o5rHY4lP">confirmation bias</a> among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:51" href="#fn:51">51</a> Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence",<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:52" href="#fn:52">52</a> and scientists who obtained the accurate number modified<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:53" href="#fn:53">53</a> or discarded<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:54" href="#fn:54">54</a> their data to agree with Painter's count.

<h2 id="roots-in-cognitive-bias">Roots in cognitive bias</h2>
Arguments from authority that are based on the idea that a person should conform to the opinion of a perceived authority or authoritative group are rooted in psychological <a href="/facts/Cognitive_biases/49YKVhmN">cognitive biases</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:55" href="#fn:55">55</a> such as the <a href="/facts/Asch_effect/0DWU6sET">Asch effect</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:56" href="#fn:56">56</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:57" href="#fn:57">57</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:58" href="#fn:58">58</a> In repeated and modified instances of the <a href="/facts/Asch_conformity_experiments/0DWU6sET">Asch conformity experiments</a>, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:59" href="#fn:59">59</a>
Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers found that "Participants reported considerable <a href="/facts/Stress_(psychological)/eqat8pq9">distress</a> under the group pressure", with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:60" href="#fn:60">60</a>
Another study shining light on the psychological basis of the fallacy as it relates to perceived authorities are the <a href="/facts/Milgram_experiments/c4HHnnKd">Milgram experiments</a>, which demonstrated that people are more likely to go along with something when it is presented by an authority.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:61" href="#fn:61">61</a> In a variation of a study where the researchers did not wear lab coats, thus reducing the perceived authority of the tasker, the obedience level dropped to 20% from the original rate, which had been higher than 50%. Obedience is encouraged by reminding the individual of what a perceived authority states and by showing them that their opinion goes against this authority.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:62" href="#fn:62">62</a>
Scholars have noted that certain environments can produce an ideal situation for these processes to take hold, giving rise to <a href="/facts/Groupthink/RcX5vFCP">groupthink</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:63" href="#fn:63">63</a> In groupthink, individuals in a group feel inclined to minimize conflict and encourage <a href="/facts/Conformity/AHpHbocb">conformity</a>. Through an appeal to authority, a group member might present that opinion as a consensus and encourage the other group members to engage in groupthink by not disagreeing with this perceived consensus or authority.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:64" href="#fn:64">64</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:65" href="#fn:65">65</a> One paper about the philosophy of mathematics states that, within academia,

If...a person accepts our discipline, and goes through two or three years of graduate study in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking, and is no longer the critical outsider he once was...If the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:66" href="#fn:66">66</a>
Corporate environments are similarly vulnerable to appeals to perceived authorities and experts leading to groupthink,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:67" href="#fn:67">67</a> as are governments and militaries.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:68" href="#fn:68">68</a>

<h2 id="see-also">See also</h2>

<ul><li><a href="/facts/Authority_bias/MqcdaRbP">Authority bias</a></li>
<li><a href="/facts/Credentialism/gTb9KHRn">Credentialism</a></li>
<li><a href="/facts/Ipse_dixit/oQ9gcDW5">Ipse dixit</a></li>
<li><a href="/facts/Manifesto_of_the_Ninety-Three/ENXLxNrd">Manifesto of the Ninety-Three</a></li>
<li><a href="/facts/Name-dropping/aHKTSHD9">Name-dropping</a></li>
<li><a href="/facts/Nobel_disease/r7tAF0bh">Nobel disease</a></li>
<li><a href="/facts/Philosophy_of_testimony/xldQjDCW">Philosophy of testimony</a></li></ul>

<h2 id="notes">Notes</h2>

<h2 id="references">References</h2>

<ol>
<li id="fn:1">Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate. Also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam. <a href="/wiki/Latin" target="_blank">/wiki/Latin</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:2">"Fallacies". University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. <a href="https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/" target="_blank">https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:3">Sadler, Troy (2006). "Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education". Journal of Science Teacher Education. 17 (4): 330. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4. S2CID 144949172. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:4">Cummings, Louise (2015). "Argument from Authority". Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty. Springer. pp. 67–92. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_4. ISBN 9783319150130. The argument from authority has had many detractors throughout the long history of logic. It is not difficult to see why this is the case. After all, the argument resorts to the use of opinion to support a claim rather than a range of more objective sources of support (e.g. evidence from experiments, observations, or measurements)...These difficulties and other weaknesses of authority arguments have found these arguments maligned in the logical treatises of several historical thinkers...'argument from authority has been mentioned in lists of valid argument-forms as often as in lists of Fallacies' <a href="9783319150130" target="_blank">9783319150130</a> <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:5">Underwood, R.H. (1994). "Logic and the Common law Trial". American Journal of Trial Advocacy: 166. <a href="http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1258&context=law_facpub" target="_blank">http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1258&context=law_facpub</a> <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:6">Cummings, Louise (2015). "Argument from Authority". Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty. Springer. pp. 67–92. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15013-0_4. ISBN 9783319150130. The argument from authority has had many detractors throughout the long history of logic. It is not difficult to see why this is the case. After all, the argument resorts to the use of opinion to support a claim rather than a range of more objective sources of support (e.g. evidence from experiments)...These difficulties and other weaknesses of authority arguments have found these arguments maligned in the logical treatises of several historical thinkers...'argument from authority has been mentioned in lists of valid argument-forms as often as in lists of Fallacies' <a href="9783319150130" target="_blank">9783319150130</a> <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:7">Underwood, R.H. (1994). "Logic and the Common law Trial". American Journal of Trial Advocacy: 166. <a href="http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1258&context=law_facpub" target="_blank">http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1258&context=law_facpub</a> <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:8">"Fallacies". University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. <a href="https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/" target="_blank">https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/</a> <a href="#fnref:8" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:9">Lewiński, Marcin (2008). "Comments on 'Black box arguments'". Argumentation. 22 (3): 447–451. doi:10.1007/s10503-008-9095-x. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10503-008-9095-x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10503-008-9095-x</a> <a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:10">Eemeren, Frans (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. John Benjamins. p. 203. ISBN 978-9027211194. <a href="978-9027211194" target="_blank">978-9027211194</a> <a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:11">"Appeal to Authority". Association for Critical Thinking. Archived from the original on 2017-11-01. Retrieved 2017-08-10. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20171101193626/http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/critical-thinking/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.php" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20171101193626/http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/critical-thinking/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.php</a> <a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:12">Salmon, Merrilee H. (2013). Introduction to logic and critical thinking (6th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth. pp. 118–121. ISBN 9781133049753. OCLC 805951311. <a href="9781133049753" target="_blank">9781133049753</a> <a href="#fnref:12" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:13">Bedau, Mark (2009). The ethics of protocells. Boston, Massachusetts; London, England: Mit Press. pp. 341. ISBN 978-0-262-01262-1. <a href="978-0-262-01262-1" target="_blank">978-0-262-01262-1</a> <a href="#fnref:13" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:14">Goodwin, Jean; McKerrow, Raymie (2011). "Accounting for the force of the appeal to authority". OSSA Conference Archive. <a href="http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ossaarchive" target="_blank">http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ossaarchive</a> <a href="#fnref:14" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:15">Sadler, Troy (2006). "Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education". Journal of Science Teacher Education. 17 (4): 330. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4. S2CID 144949172. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:15" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:16">Carroll, Robert. "Appeal to Authority". The Skeptic's Dictionary. <a href="http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html" target="_blank">http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html</a> <a href="#fnref:16" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:17">Woodward, Ian. "Ignorance is Contagious" (PDF). University of Tasmania. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-04-04. Retrieved 2017-08-10. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160404011911/http://www.geol.utas.edu.au/geography/EIANZ/Ignorance_is_contagious_(July_2008).pdf" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20160404011911/http://www.geol.utas.edu.au/geography/EIANZ/Ignorance_is_contagious_(July_2008).pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:17" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:18">Knight, Sue; Collins, Carol (October 2005). "The Cultivation of Reason Giving". International Journal of the Humanities. 3 (2): 187.[dead link‍] <a href="http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/25038782" target="_blank">http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/25038782</a> <a href="#fnref:18" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:19">"The Rival Theories of Cholera". Medical Press and Circular. 90: 28. 1885. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=wBgCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA28" target="_blank">https://books.google.com/books?id=wBgCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA28</a> <a href="#fnref:19" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:20">Williamson, Owen. "Master List of Logical Fallacies". The University of Texas at El Paso. <a href="http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm" target="_blank">http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:20" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:21">Goodwin, Jean (May 1998). "Forms of Authority and the Real Ad Verecundiam". Argumentation. 12 (2): 267–280. doi:10.1023/A:1007756117287 – via Springer Science+Business Media. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007756117287" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007756117287</a> <a href="#fnref:21" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:22">Garrett, Aaron (2014). The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy. Routledge. p. 280. ISBN 9781317807926. demonstrations proceed deductively while probable reasoning involves inductive inferences. <a href="9781317807926" target="_blank">9781317807926</a> <a href="#fnref:22" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:23">McBride, Michael. "Retrospective Scientific Evaluation". Yale University. Archived from the original on 2010-07-24. Retrieved 2017-08-10. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100724053801/https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20100724053801/https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret</a> <a href="#fnref:23" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:24">Zinser, Otto (1984). Basic Principles of Experimental Psychology. McGraw-Hill. p. 37. ISBN 9780070728455. <a href="9780070728455" target="_blank">9780070728455</a> <a href="#fnref:24" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:25">Stephen, Leslie (1882). The Science of Ethics. G. P. Putnam's sons. p. viii. <a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175355" target="_blank">https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175355</a> <a href="#fnref:25" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:26">Garrett, Aaron (2014). The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy. Routledge. p. 280. ISBN 9781317807926. demonstrations proceed deductively while probable reasoning involves inductive inferences. <a href="9781317807926" target="_blank">9781317807926</a> <a href="#fnref:26" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:27">Curtis, Gary N. "Misleading Appeal to Authority". The Fallacy Files. Retrieved 2021-07-08. <a href="https://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html" target="_blank">https://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html</a> <a href="#fnref:27" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:28">"Fallacies". University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. <a href="https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/" target="_blank">https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/</a> <a href="#fnref:28" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:29">Williamson, Owen. "Master List of Logical Fallacies". The University of Texas at El Paso. <a href="http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm" target="_blank">http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:29" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:30">Ruggiero, Tim. "Logical Fallacies". <a href="http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#argumentum%20ad%20lazarum%20--%20The%20fallacy%20of%20supposing%20a%20conclusion%20is%20valid%20because%20the%20argument%20is%20made%20by%20a%20poor%20person.%20It%20is%20the%20opposite%20of%20the%20ad%20crumenam%20fallacy." target="_blank">http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm#argumentum%20ad%20lazarum%20--%20The%20fallacy%20of%20supposing%20a%20conclusion%20is%20valid%20because%20the%20argument%20is%20made%20by%20a%20poor%20person.%20It%20is%20the%20opposite%20of%20the%20ad%20crumenam%20fallacy.</a> <a href="#fnref:30" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:31">Bennett, Bo. "Appeal to the Common Man". Logically Fallacious. <a href="http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/24-appeal-to-common-folk" target="_blank">http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/24-appeal-to-common-folk</a> <a href="#fnref:31" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:32">McBride, Michael. "Retrospective Scientific Evaluation". Yale University. Archived from the original on 2010-07-24. Retrieved 2017-08-10. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100724053801/https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20100724053801/https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.html#ret</a> <a href="#fnref:32" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:33">Zinser, Otto (1984). Basic Principles of Experimental Psychology. McGraw-Hill. p. 37. ISBN 9780070728455. <a href="9780070728455" target="_blank">9780070728455</a> <a href="#fnref:33" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:34">Stephen, Leslie (1882). The Science of Ethics. G. P. Putnam's sons. p. viii. <a href="https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175355" target="_blank">https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.175355</a> <a href="#fnref:34" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:35">Zinser, Otto (1984). Basic Principles of Experimental Psychology. McGraw-Hill. p. 37. ISBN 9780070728455. <a href="9780070728455" target="_blank">9780070728455</a> <a href="#fnref:35" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:36">Stevenson, I. (1990). Some of My Journeys in Medicine (PDF). The University of Southwestern Louisiana. p. 18. <a href="https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2015/11/some-of-my-journeys-in-medicine.pdf" target="_blank">https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2015/11/some-of-my-journeys-in-medicine.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:36" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:37">Quick, James Campbell; Little, Laura M.; Cooper, Cary L.; Gibbs, Philip C.; Nelson, Debra (2010). "Organizational Behavior". International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 278. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229724832" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229724832</a> <a href="#fnref:37" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:38">Sagan, Carl (July 6, 2011). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Ballantine Books. ISBN 9780307801043. <a href="9780307801043" target="_blank">9780307801043</a> <a href="#fnref:38" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:39">Painter, Theophilus S. (April 1923), "Studies in mammalian spermatogenesis. II. The spermatogenesis of man", Journal of Experimental Zoology, 37 (3): 291–336, doi:10.1002/jez.1400370303 <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:39" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:40">Glass, Bentley (1990). Theophilus Shickel Painter (PDF). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. pp. 316–17. <a href="http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/painter-theophilus-shickel.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/painter-theophilus-shickel.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:40" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:41">Mertens, Thomas (October 1979). "The Role of Factual Knowledge in Biology Teaching". The American Biology Teacher. 41 (7): 395–419. doi:10.2307/4446671. JSTOR 4446671. <a href="/wiki/The_American_Biology_Teacher" target="_blank">/wiki/The_American_Biology_Teacher</a> <a href="#fnref:41" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:42">Tjio, Joe Hin; Levan, Albert (May 1956), "The Chromosome Number of Man", Hereditas, 42 (1–2): 723–4, doi:10.1111/j.1601-5223.1956.tb03010.x, PMID 345813 <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:42" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:43">O'Connor, Clare (2008), Human Chromosome Number, Nature, retrieved April 24, 2014 <a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Human-Chromosome-Number-294" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Human-Chromosome-Number-294</a> <a href="#fnref:43" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:44">Gartler, Stanley (2006). "The Chromosome Number in Humans: A Brief History". Nature Reviews Genetics. 7 (8): 655–60. doi:10.1038/nrg1917. PMID 16847465. S2CID 21365693. <a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/The-chromosome-number-in-humans-a-brief-15575" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/The-chromosome-number-in-humans-a-brief-15575</a> <a href="#fnref:44" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:45">Mertens, Thomas (October 1979). "The Role of Factual Knowledge in Biology Teaching". The American Biology Teacher. 41 (7): 395–419. doi:10.2307/4446671. JSTOR 4446671. <a href="/wiki/The_American_Biology_Teacher" target="_blank">/wiki/The_American_Biology_Teacher</a> <a href="#fnref:45" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:46">Glass, Bentley (1990). Theophilus Shickel Painter (PDF). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. pp. 316–17. <a href="http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/painter-theophilus-shickel.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/painter-theophilus-shickel.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:46" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:47">Orrell, David PhD. (2008). The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction. pp. 184–85. <a href="/wiki/Apollo%27s_Arrow" target="_blank">/wiki/Apollo%27s_Arrow</a> <a href="#fnref:47" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:48">Glass, Bentley (1990). Theophilus Shickel Painter (PDF). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. pp. 316–17. <a href="http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/painter-theophilus-shickel.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/painter-theophilus-shickel.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:48" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:49">Orrell, David PhD. (2008). The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction. pp. 184–85. <a href="/wiki/Apollo%27s_Arrow" target="_blank">/wiki/Apollo%27s_Arrow</a> <a href="#fnref:49" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:50">Kevles, Daniel J. (1985). "Human Chromosomes--Down's Disorder and the Binder's Mistakes" (PDF). Engineering and Science: 9. <a href="http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/594/2/Kevles.pdf" target="_blank">http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/594/2/Kevles.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:50" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:51">Kevles, Daniel J. (1985). "Human Chromosomes--Down's Disorder and the Binder's Mistakes" (PDF). Engineering and Science: 9. <a href="http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/594/2/Kevles.pdf" target="_blank">http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/594/2/Kevles.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:51" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:52">Orrell, David PhD. (2008). The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction. pp. 184–85. <a href="/wiki/Apollo%27s_Arrow" target="_blank">/wiki/Apollo%27s_Arrow</a> <a href="#fnref:52" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:53">T. C., Hsu (1979). "Out of the Dark Ages: Human and Mammalian Cytogenetics: An Historical Perspective" (PDF). Cell. 18 (4): 1375–1376. doi:10.1016/0092-8674(79)90249-6. S2CID 54330665. <a href="http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/0092-8674%2879%2990249-6.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/0092-8674%2879%2990249-6.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:53" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:54">Unger, Lawrence; Blystone, Robert (1996). "Paradigm Lost: The Human Chromosome Story" (PDF). Bioscene. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-09-05. Retrieved 2016-03-24. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20060905015828/http://amcbt.indstate.edu/volume_22/v22-2p3-9.pdf" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20060905015828/http://amcbt.indstate.edu/volume_22/v22-2p3-9.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:54" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:55">Sammut, Gordon; Bauer, Martin W (2011). "Social Influence: Modes and Modalities". The Social Psychology of Communication (PDF). pp. 87–106. doi:10.1057/9780230297616_5. ISBN 978-0-230-24736-9. <a href="978-0-230-24736-9" target="_blank">978-0-230-24736-9</a> <a href="#fnref:55" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:56">Delameter, Andrew (2017). "Contrasting Scientific & Non-Scientific Approaches to Acquiring Knowledge". City University of New York. <a href="http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/psych/delam/57/Lecture1.pptx" target="_blank">http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/psych/delam/57/Lecture1.pptx</a> <a href="#fnref:56" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:57">Sheldon, Brian; Macdonald, Geraldine (2010). A Textbook of Social Work. Routledge. p. 40. ISBN 9781135282615. <a href="9781135282615" target="_blank">9781135282615</a> <a href="#fnref:57" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:58">Bates, Jordan (16 March 2016). "12 Psychological Tactics Donald Trump Uses to Manipulate the Masses". 11. Appeals to Authority. <a href="https://highexistence.com/12-psychological-tactics-donald-trump-uses-to-manipulate-the-masses/" target="_blank">https://highexistence.com/12-psychological-tactics-donald-trump-uses-to-manipulate-the-masses/</a> <a href="#fnref:58" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:59">McLeod, Samuel (2008), Asch Experiment, Simply Psychology <a href="http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html" target="_blank">http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html</a> <a href="#fnref:59" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:60">Webley, Paul, A partial and non-evaluative history of the Asch effect, University of Exeter <a href="http://people.exeter.ac.uk/PWebley/psy1002/asch.html" target="_blank">http://people.exeter.ac.uk/PWebley/psy1002/asch.html</a> <a href="#fnref:60" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:61">Milgram, S (1965). "Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority". Human Relations. 18 (1): 57–76. doi:10.1177/001872676501800105. S2CID 37505499. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:61" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:62">Milgram, S (1965). "Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority". Human Relations. 18 (1): 57–76. doi:10.1177/001872676501800105. S2CID 37505499. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:62" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:63">"December 2014 – Page 2". Disrupted Physician. 22 December 2014. <a href="https://disruptedphysician.blog/2014/12/page/2/" target="_blank">https://disruptedphysician.blog/2014/12/page/2/</a> <a href="#fnref:63" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:64">Definition of GROUPTHINK. (2017). Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groupthink <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groupthink" target="_blank">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groupthink</a> <a href="#fnref:64" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:65">Rossi, Stacey (2006). "Examination of Exclusion Rates in Massachusetts Public Schools" (PDF).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) <a href="http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492086.pdf" target="_blank">http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492086.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:65" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:66">David, Phillip J.; Hersh, Reuben (1998). New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics (PDF). Princeton University Press. p. 8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042349/http://users-cs.au.dk/danvy/the-ideal-mathematician.pdf" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042349/http://users-cs.au.dk/danvy/the-ideal-mathematician.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:66" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:67">Lookwin, B. (2015). "Biopharma Training". Archived from the original on 2017-09-12. Retrieved 2017-09-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170912195209/http://www.biopharminternational.com/raising-bar-biopharma-training" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20170912195209/http://www.biopharminternational.com/raising-bar-biopharma-training</a> <a href="#fnref:67" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:68">Janis, Irving L. (1971). "Groupthink" (PDF). Psychology Today. <a href="http://agcommtheory.pbworks.com/f/GroupThink.pdf" target="_blank">http://agcommtheory.pbworks.com/f/GroupThink.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:68" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
</ol>

Argument from authority open-in-new

Argument from authority