This is another technique, one that is often categorized as a fallacy, or faulty and incorrect use of logic. If it stands alone and is used without the support of any other type of reasoning, then without a doubt its use is fallacious. The authority being appealed to has to actually be recognized as such.
It could be yourself if you have expertise or knowledge that your opponent does not have, or it could be someone outside of the two of you who is better versed than you both.
For example:
Bill and Joe work IT support for a company and are arguing over what security protocol to use to secure their building’s wireless network. Along with listing all the benefits of the system he is advocating, oe lets Bill know that his qualifications had a much greater emphasis on wireless security than Bill’s.
Tammy and Jeff are expecting their first child. Tammy wakes up to jog every morning and Bill is worried that this will harm the baby in some way. Tammy tells Jeff that she spoke with their obstetrician and she said that exercise is fine and healthy for the baby, and also goes on to tell Jeff the specific effects exercise will have.
In both the above cases, the authority being appealed to – Dave himself and Tammy’s doctor – is an expert in a field relevant to the one being discussed. Now compare it with this:
Coworker Brad overhears Bill and Joe’s argument over wireless security protocols. He chimes in that his buddy Chad uses his little sister’s middle name as a WEP password on his dad’s office’s wireless network, so that would obviously be the best choice.
Who the hell is Chad and what expertise and qualifications does he have besides being “super good with computers, bro” as Brad says? Bill and Dave can ignore Brad’s suggestion without pause.
Always remember, though, that even if the authority is pertinent to the issue the appeal is worthless without support from other types of reason.
