> Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

Only when the authority isn't authoritative.

Authority is not inherently bad, and in some cases what an authority recommends is going to be significantly better than whatever conclusion an individual comes to via their 'enlightenment'.

Maybe you're smart and great at critical thinking and have a high level of self-confidence that you could investigate an issue and reach the right, or at least a good enough conclusion, but I don't think that's true for most people.

It's certainly not true for the "authorities" in question here. Meaning, they indeed aren't "authoritative", as you would have it.

You essentially refuse to seriously check for that. I guess, because you have so little confidence in what your peers would do if they found out?

Authoritativeness isn't reliably conveyed ex officio. Putting your head in the sand isn't a solution for that.

> It's certainly not true for the "authorities" in question here. Meaning, they indeed aren't "authoritative", as you would have it.

Weird use of scarequotes. And yeah, no one is claiming the person who wrote the opinion is an authority. You made a generalization though, and that's what I was responding to.

> I guess, because you have so little confidence in what your peers would do if they found out?

Found out what? I don't even have confidence that most of my "peers" would think it's important to check in the first place.

A far less extreme take could be that a random agitator writing an opinion piece has a lot less of a reputation to lose than a publisher or professional journalist.

"Reputation" is a crude social heuristic. It's also authority in disguise.

No it's not. The police have authority. Your doctor has credibility. Your doctor doesn't order you around. The doctor's reputation is an aggregation of the public's mood.

I actually appreciate The Hill's opinion section and contributor editorials, as they regularly pierce my bubble and expose me to some, frankly, batshit opinions and bad ideas. But I think in moderation that's a good thing.

But I give more weight to The Hill's actual authors and editors. The name means something to me. Same as The Times, The Post, or (formerly) GiantBomb.

You don't understand.

The point is that the title implies a claim (that "The Hill" endorses it) that the article denies (it doesn't).

The title is click-bait.

The point here is people succumbing to confirmation bias and circular reasoning. That article is no simple 'clickbait'-nonsense.

Objectively, importance is judged via cumulative consequences over time. The event of contact with non-human higher intelligence can hardly be over-stated in that regard.

Being made fools of by your government to such a degree, you would risk missing a potentially world-changing event, is also quite something.

Yeah, sure...

Just curious, which of these do you also believe:

* The Earth is flat

* Global Warming is just a hoax

* Evolution is just a theory

* 9/11 was an inside job

* January/6th was peaceful

This discussion applies to every Opinion section piece.

* No, it doesn't necessarily represent the view of the editorial board. That why 'Opinion' has its own special section.

* Yes, they did find it at least noteworthy enough to publish.