The idea that appeals to authority are good arguments is not identical to the idea that the opinions of experts are more accurate. Suppose they are more accurate, on average. Does that make appealing to one a good argument?
What do you mean by good argument? The Bayesians have an answer to this. They mean that P(claim|argument)> P(claim). Now, one might argue in that framework that if P(claim|argument)/P(claim) is close to 1 then this isn’t a good argument , or if if log P(claim|argument)/P(claim) is small compared to the effort to present and evaluate the argument then it isn’t a good argument.
However, that’s obviously not what you mean. It isn’t clear to me what you mean by “good argument” and how this connects to the notion of a fallacy. Please expand your definitions or taboo the terms.
What do you mean by good argument? The Bayesians have an answer to this. They mean that P(claim|argument)> P(claim). Now, one might argue in that framework that if P(claim|argument)/P(claim) is close to 1 then this isn’t a good argument , or if if log P(claim|argument)/P(claim) is small compared to the effort to present and evaluate the argument then it isn’t a good argument.
However, that’s obviously not what you mean. It isn’t clear to me what you mean by “good argument” and how this connects to the notion of a fallacy. Please expand your definitions or taboo the terms.