The article dissects the flawed reasoning involved in accepting claims from authoritarian leaders, introducing the concept of 'argument from authoritarian.' This logical fallacy occurs when someone believes a statement solely because a leader they respect made it, disregarding evidence. The article emphasizes that fear of retaliation can compel individuals to align with these claims, but this does not equate to rational acceptance. The logic is highlighted through an absurd example, showing that authority does not validate a claim's truth.
The use of my usual silly math example illustrates why this is bad logic: Premise 1: The dear leader claims that 2+2 = 7. Conclusion: The dear leader is right.
While fear can provide people with motivation to accept an argument from authoritarian, there are other psychological reasons that can drive this behavior.
Collection
[
|
...
]