In his influential work on critical argumentation, Douglas Walton explains how to judge whether an argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) is fallacious or legitimate. He provides six critical questions and a number of ancillary sub-questions to guide the identification of reasonable appeals to authority. While it is common for informal logicians to acknowledge the role of bias in sampling procedures (which are supposed to select statistically random samples) and hypothesis confirmation (which tends to be self-serving), there is a conspicuous lack of discourse on the effect of identity prejudice on judgments of authority, even though this is a well-documented factor in attributing credibility, expertise, trustworthiness, and professional competence to oppressed groups. This could result in faulty judgments of ad verecundiam fallacy. Focusing on gender bias, I review recent works in feminist epistemology—particularly those of Miranda Fricker (2007) and Helen Longino (2002)—to develop three gender-based critical questions to supplement Walton’s original list of six. This addition will help us to identify erroneous dismissals of appeals to authority based on epistemic injustice and epistemic irresponsibility on the part of the speaker or knowledge community. This project promotes the overlapping aims of feminist epistemology and informal logic.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Johnson reiterates this concern more recently in The dialectical tier revisited (2003).
Brown, Campbell. 2008. A McCain aid defends Palin. CNN. Retrieved December 27, 2008, from http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/01/brown.tucker.bounds.interview.cnn.
Campbell, Sue. 1994. Being dismissed: The politics of emotional expression. Hypatia 9(3): 46–65.
Carlin, Diana B., and Kelly L. Winfrey. 2009. Have you come a long way baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and sexism in 2008 campaign coverage. Communication Studies 60(4): 326–343.
Dowd, Maurine. 2008. Can Hillary cry her way back to the White House? The New York Times. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html?em&.
Edwards, Janice L., and C.Austin McDonald. 2010. Reading Hillary and Sarah: Contradictions of feminism and representation in 2008 campaign political cartoons. American Behavioral Scientist 54(3): 313–329.
Fox News. 2007. Report: Clinton campaign working on two-for-one package with husband. Retrieved January 22, 2009, from http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story.0,3566,271923,00.html.
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frye, Marilyn. 1983. A note on anger. In The politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory, ed. Marilyn Frye. Trumansberg, NY: The Crossing Press.
Gilbert, Michael. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hansen, Hans V. 2006. Whately on arguments involving authority. Informal Logic 26(3): 319–340.
Healy, Patrick. 2007. In new role, Senator Clinton’s strategist in chief. The New York Times. Retrieved January 22, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/us/politics/13bill.html?_r=1&ei=4fbeb562.
Infante, Dominic A. 1985. Inducing women to be more argumentative: Source credibility effects. Journal of Applied Communication Research 13(1): 33–44.
Infante, Dominic A., and Rancer, A. S. 1996. Argumentativeness and agressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. In Communication Yearbook, ed. D. Burleson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 1995. Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, Ralph H. 1987. The blaze of her splendors: Suggestions about revitalizing fallacy theory. Argumentation 1(3): 239–253.
Johnson, Ralph H. 2003. The dialectical tier revisited. In Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren et al. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jordan-Jackson, Felicia F., Yang Lin, Andrew S. Rancer, and Dominic A. Infante. 2008. Perceptions of males and females’ use of aggressive affirming and nonaffirming messages in an interpersonal dispute: You’ve come a long way baby? Western Journal of Communication 72(3): 239–258.
Kahane, Howard. 1971. Logic and contemporary rhetoric, 1st ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books Inc.
LaRoque, Emma.1990. Preface to writing the circle, ed. Jeanne Perreault and Silvia Vance. Edmonton: NeWest Publishers.
Longino, Helen E. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mack, Kathy. 1993. Continuing barriers to women’s credibility: A feminist perspective on the proof process. Criminal Law Forum 4(2): 327–353.
Morrill, C., and Peter C. Facciola. 1992. The power of language in adjudication and mediation: Institutional contexts as predictors of social evaluation. Law & Social Inquiry 17(2):191–212.
Palin on how to respond to sexist media. 2008. Salon.com. Retrieved January 23, 2009, from http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=13894.
Rancer, A.S., and T. A. Avtgis. 2006. Argumentative and agressive communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walton, Douglas. 2008. Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watson, Tom. 2008. The sexist media mugging of Hillary Clinton. Retrieved December 22, 2008, from http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2008/01/the-sexist-medi.html.
About this article
Cite this article
Ciurria, M., Altamimi, K. Argumentum ad Verecundiam: New Gender-based Criteria for Appeals to Authority. Argumentation 28, 437–452 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9328-0
- Ad verecundiam
- Epistemic injustice
- Epistemic responsibility