Citing research by scientific authorities is not necessarily an "appeal to authority" fallacy when used appropriately. Here's why:
Expertise and Knowledge: Scientific authorities, such as researchers, scholars, and experts in a particular field, often possess extensive knowledge, expertise, and experience in their respective areas of study. Their work undergoes rigorous peer review and scrutiny, ensuring a higher level of credibility and reliability compared to unsupported or unverified claims.
Consensus Building: Scientific authorities contribute to the formation of scientific consensus. Consensus is established when a significant majority of experts in a field agree on a particular interpretation of evidence or theory. Referring to a scientific consensus is not an appeal to authority fallacy but a recognition of the collective knowledge and agreement within the scientific community.
Availability of Evidence: Scientific authorities often provide evidence-based arguments and conclusions derived from empirical research, systematic studies, experiments, and data analysis. By citing their work, individuals are referencing a body of evidence and the scientific process, which is crucial for establishing reliable knowledge and making informed decisions.
However, it is essential to understand that blindly accepting any authority without critical evaluation can lead to fallacious reasoning. Merely citing an authority's opinion without providing supporting evidence or considering alternative viewpoints would indeed be an appeal to authority fallacy. It is crucial to critically evaluate the evidence, consider multiple perspectives, and understand the reasoning behind the cited authority's conclusions.
In scientific discourse, citing research by scientific authorities is a common practice to provide a foundation for claims and support arguments. However, the strength of an argument ultimately lies in the quality and relevance of the evidence presented, rather than solely relying on the authority of the individuals involved.