A variation on this logical fallacy is saying that because an individual is not an authority, they have no right to talk about a subject regardless of their evidence and arguments. This tactic is used to dismiss individuals without considering their argument or evidence.
I have recently come across two instances of this logical fallacy that were rather amusing. Both of them took the following form:
Person A took Person B to task because of something that Person B published dealing with Subject X. Person C took umbrage because Person A is not considered an expert on Subject X and Person C knows of no training that Person A has in Subject X. What Person C ironically ignored is that Person B is not an expert on Subject X and has no training in Subject X either.What this usually means is that Person C agrees with the position of Person B and not with the position of Person A. Arguments and evidence is irrelevant, as in this case are training and qualifications of the authority (because both lack expertise). The ad verecundiam fallacy is merely invoked as a way of dismissing an argument without considering it. But it remains a logical fallacy. Its use in such circumstances is amusingly ironic.
