One of These Fallacies Doesn’t Belong

Straw man.
Ad hominem.
Binary Trap.
Appeal to authority.

One of these is not like the others.

Most logical fallacies serve a purpose:
They protect your thinking.
Avoiding them helps you think clearly and rationally.

They’re guardrails. Warnings.
Each one points to a mental shortcut that’s easy, tempting, and wrong.

Straw man says: don’t fight a fake version of the argument.
Ad hominem says: don’t attack the messenger and call it logic.
Binary Trap says: don’t collapse a complex situation into a yes-or-no ultimatum.

These aren’t moral rules.
They’re tools for staying sharp.

But then there’s appeal to authority.

And something’s off.

---

The original idea was simple:
Don’t assume something is true just because an expert said it.

Truth isn’t inherited. It has to be shown.

That rule actually helped you think more clearly.
It fit the list.

But now?

The current definition—straight from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy—is this:

An argument that uses an authority as evidence in support of an argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.

So now it’s not a fallacy if the person is qualified.

Which is absurd.

That’s not a rule of logic. That’s a lifestyle tip.
It’s like saying: “Eat a healthy breakfast.”
Maybe that’s great advice. Maybe it keeps you alive longer.
But it doesn’t belong in a list of logical fallacies.

It’s not a warning about how thinking can go wrong.
It’s a suggestion about who to trust.

---

The other fallacies say:
“Don’t skip the hard part of reasoning.”
Appeal to authority now says:
“Just make sure you're following the right person.”

That’s not logic.
That’s obedience—selective obedience.

Whether or not that’s wise is a separate question.
Maybe blind trust in experts is a perfectly good way to live.
Maybe it’s efficient. Maybe it’s even safer.

But it has nothing to do with thinking clearly.

Which is what the fallacy list is supposed to be for.