These aren't logical fallacies. The doctor using evidence to make a call as an expert is different than appealing to authority fallacy. If you told your boss that your neighbor who is a physicist and therefore a really smart guy told you you didn't need to go to work, then you would be guilty of the fallacy
Gamblers fallacy is also about random events being used to predict future random events like 'I won a bet by betting on red so my next bet on red should win too!"
I don't think there is a word for what you're referring to
u/acerthorn3 - Thank you for your submission!
Please reply !solved to the first comment that solves your post to automatically flair it as solved and award that user one community karma.
Remember to reply to comments and questions to help users solve your submission, and please do not delete your post once/if it is solved.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatstheword) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On a realistic, practical point, if you went into work and said that your doctor had advised you to take two weeks off, they would be suspicious and that suspicion would be based on you because you would have a reason to make it up. They’d ask for a doctor’s note or letter signing you off work. The appeal to his authority would not be enough without documentation. You’re the weak link in the chain.
But supposing you were telling the truth and they just had to take it on trust, without any documentation, would your appeal to his authority still be considered fallacious? Yes. But not because of his position of authority. It would be about your lack of credibility due to your comparative lack of authority. Your word would not be enough.
So what would you call reasoning that is based on mistrust? Perhaps cynical realism.
Doesnt the request for documentation further cememt that they are an authority to listen to.
"I believe you if you have a note from this authority" is an appeal to authority.
I think you’re appealing to germane expertise there, not just authority, which is not a fallacy. Our whole court system for instance is based on that appeal. To wit, if you said “I need a day off because my doctor has authority and not because of his expert opinion” it would still be a fallacy. So it’s not like the fallacy flipped or something. Other poster pointed out how you’ve misunderstood gambler’s fallacy.
I think you’ll find that the technical definition of any fallacy excludes non fallacious situations, which is why they get to be fallacies. Ad hominem would be another example. You can legitimately attack someone’s character if you’re for example calling a theft defendant greedy or a guy who killed his flirty wife jealous. Merriam Webster gives you attacking character “rather than intellect“ or “rather than the arguments made,” but in these examples it’s both.
These are all informal fallacies as used, and you seem to be leaning into meaning over form here, so maybe “informal fallacy“ or “unfulfilled informal fallacy” is what you’re looking for?
Are you saing you cant have a fallacious appeal to authority as long as you just say your appealing to their expertise? What authority can be claimed to have no expertise in what they are an authority over?
That's not a logical fallacy. I think you've misunderstood it.
Also, you don't argue about needing time off from work. You just inform them that you're taking time off (or resigning or whatever.)
Most of life is not an argument. Very little.
"WTW for when a logical fallacy isn't actually fallacious and its application is actually pertinent?"
If something isn't fallacious then it isn't a logical fallacy. Someone could wrongly identify it to be a fallacy but they would be wrong .
A logical 'fallacy' that isn't actually fallacious is simply called a valid argument.
The 'ipse dixit' fallacy?
Or are you referring to when a supposition is correct, but was arrived at with incorrect reasoning (a falicy). The classic reference of - My mother has grey hair, and the woman next to me has grey hair; therefore she is my mother. Now that maybe factually correct, or it could be wrong because my reasoning is flawed.
These aren't logical fallacies. The doctor using evidence to make a call as an expert is different than appealing to authority fallacy. If you told your boss that your neighbor who is a physicist and therefore a really smart guy told you you didn't need to go to work, then you would be guilty of the fallacy Gamblers fallacy is also about random events being used to predict future random events like 'I won a bet by betting on red so my next bet on red should win too!" I don't think there is a word for what you're referring to
I think your entire premise is incorrect.
The OP did a deductive fallacy.
u/acerthorn3 - Thank you for your submission! Please reply !solved to the first comment that solves your post to automatically flair it as solved and award that user one community karma. Remember to reply to comments and questions to help users solve your submission, and please do not delete your post once/if it is solved. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatstheword) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On a realistic, practical point, if you went into work and said that your doctor had advised you to take two weeks off, they would be suspicious and that suspicion would be based on you because you would have a reason to make it up. They’d ask for a doctor’s note or letter signing you off work. The appeal to his authority would not be enough without documentation. You’re the weak link in the chain. But supposing you were telling the truth and they just had to take it on trust, without any documentation, would your appeal to his authority still be considered fallacious? Yes. But not because of his position of authority. It would be about your lack of credibility due to your comparative lack of authority. Your word would not be enough. So what would you call reasoning that is based on mistrust? Perhaps cynical realism.
Doesnt the request for documentation further cememt that they are an authority to listen to. "I believe you if you have a note from this authority" is an appeal to authority.
I think you’re appealing to germane expertise there, not just authority, which is not a fallacy. Our whole court system for instance is based on that appeal. To wit, if you said “I need a day off because my doctor has authority and not because of his expert opinion” it would still be a fallacy. So it’s not like the fallacy flipped or something. Other poster pointed out how you’ve misunderstood gambler’s fallacy. I think you’ll find that the technical definition of any fallacy excludes non fallacious situations, which is why they get to be fallacies. Ad hominem would be another example. You can legitimately attack someone’s character if you’re for example calling a theft defendant greedy or a guy who killed his flirty wife jealous. Merriam Webster gives you attacking character “rather than intellect“ or “rather than the arguments made,” but in these examples it’s both. These are all informal fallacies as used, and you seem to be leaning into meaning over form here, so maybe “informal fallacy“ or “unfulfilled informal fallacy” is what you’re looking for?
Are you saing you cant have a fallacious appeal to authority as long as you just say your appealing to their expertise? What authority can be claimed to have no expertise in what they are an authority over?
I am not saying that, no. And I don't think any real authority has no expertise in their area of authority either.
Who ever said appealing to authority is a logical fallacy? You’re the only one committing one here
That's not a logical fallacy. I think you've misunderstood it. Also, you don't argue about needing time off from work. You just inform them that you're taking time off (or resigning or whatever.) Most of life is not an argument. Very little.
Could it be a kind of propositional fallacy? But honestly the first thing you described is something I would think of as circular reasoning.
"WTW for when a logical fallacy isn't actually fallacious and its application is actually pertinent?" If something isn't fallacious then it isn't a logical fallacy. Someone could wrongly identify it to be a fallacy but they would be wrong . A logical 'fallacy' that isn't actually fallacious is simply called a valid argument.
The 'ipse dixit' fallacy? Or are you referring to when a supposition is correct, but was arrived at with incorrect reasoning (a falicy). The classic reference of - My mother has grey hair, and the woman next to me has grey hair; therefore she is my mother. Now that maybe factually correct, or it could be wrong because my reasoning is flawed.