Trust is a necessity, not authority. Those with authority are often not trustworthy.

I get it but in this context "authority" means an authority on a particular topic, not like a police officer or something. Appeal to authority becomes a fallacy when you appeal to someone who is not actually an authority on the subject at hand.

It's also when you have no argument and when confronted defer to "they must know their shit"

But how do you determine if someone is an authority? Our world is filled with epistemological bubbles. One person's expert is another's snake oil peddler.

Right, I don't think we really disagree about anything. "That's an appeal to authority" is not a useful objection, because appealing to authority is often a great idea. "That's not a good authority" is a good objection and often very relevant.

It's sort of like seeing a lot of arguments that rely on false or misleading evidence and deciding that "appeal to evidence" is a fallacy. The choice of authority or evidence is the issue, not the act of appealing.

> if done improperly, this could be a logical fallacy

Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't this put it in a totally different category than other fallacies? Circular arguments, for example. All circular arguments are wrong. If you identify a circular argument you don't even have to fully understand what is being said, you can immediately conclude "this is a bad argument".

But appeal to authority isn't like that. "I'm not going to drive through the mountains today because the roads are iced over, and I know that because the highway department said so." That's an appeal to authority, and it isn't proof, but it's a good argument and there's no need to drive out yourself and confirm that the roads are dangerous. Identifying an appeal to authority is not enough to discard an argument, you need to evaluate the authority. When you see a circular argument you don't have to measure the diameter of the circle or something.

So I don't think appealing the Grammarly was a fallacy, but in this case I think they're wrong.

That's a good clarification. Thanks for the example.

Hmm... perhaps my concern is that expert opinions matter way more than non-experts, but we still can't blindly trust them.

...and I'm sure you're not saying to take everything they say as word of truth.

I withdraw my argument on the grounds it is poorly constructed.