Trigger words: inductive reasoning
Indicator sentences: ...it isn't, though? Inductive reasoning is simply adding together premises to form a conclusion. One could make predictions using inductive reasoning, given that one of those premises is the assumption that any patterns you notice will continue, but that's not necessarily the definition of inductive reasoning.
Negotiation parts: EDIT: An appeal to authority could be inductive reasoning, sure: "X says that A is good, and X must be right. Therefore, A is good." It's just not valid reasoning, just like with all logical fallacies. Hmm; you're right - but I don't know if there is a difference between what kind of pattern you are observing. Are some kinds of patterns superior? It may be that they are.
Trigger words: Inductive reasoning inductive reasoning (4)
Indicator sentences: Inductive reasoning isn't an authority. It is a method.
Negotiation parts: The authority in the appeal to authority fallacy is always a person. It isn't a fallacy to say, "2+2=4" because mathematics is an "authority". However, the bigger problem with your question is that inductive reasoning is not about "making predictions of the future", although it can be. Inductive reasoning is a method for reaching probable conclusions. But, deductive reasoning yields conclusions that are necessarily true. Did you perhaps mean deductive reasoning? No I did mean inductive reasoning. Making predictions that are probably true. [STA-CITE]> No I did mean inductive reasoning [END-CITE]Then I just find that odd. Why would you choose inductive over deductive reasoning? Also, do you have a response to my comment that inductive reasoning is a method, not an "authority"? [STA-CITE]> Making predictions that are probably true. [END-CITE]Again, inductive reasoning is not necessarily about "making predictions about the future". For example: All the gingers I have ever met were over six feet tall Bob is a ginger Therefore, Bob is over six feet tall The state of Bob's height is not a future event. It doesn't have to be a future event - although I am not sure why the temporal location of an event or observation matters. We are extrapolating "prior" to "post", that's all. Well, it was your OP that said "making predictions of the future". Future denotes temporal location. Please respond to the point that a method is not an "authority" for purposes of the appeal to authority fallacy. It depends on what kind of inductive reasoning you're speaking of. If you're talking about the general concept of science, inductive reasoning is based on the assumption that the universe exists and has at least some uniform rules that it's possible for us to discover. With this assumption, each observation gives additional evidence that can justify a belief that we understand these actually existing uniform rules. Knowledge is generally considered to be "justified true belief", so inductive reasoning can increase knowledge. This assumption could be wrong, but it's a different assumption than that a fallible human being can be right about a lot of things without being right about everything. Ironically, the reason appeal to authority is a fallacy is that we have a vast body of evidence that humans often are right about many things, but wrong about other things. One might even consider that to be a uniform rule that applies consistently. There's never been an example of a human being that was right about everything. I don't know if you can authoritatively make that claim, but I don't think it is necessarily relevant here. One doesn't have to expect a person to be right about everything to expect them to be right about a few things. That's fine. My point is that inductive knowledge about laws that you presume to be universal and unchanging is entirely different from appealing on one topic to the authority of a human being that has been right about some other things in the past. It's especially egregious when the things the authority was right about before have nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is when that fallacy usually comes into play.
Indicator sentences: I don't understand the comparison you are making.
Indicator sentences: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that all scientists agree about everything in their field? Are scientists the only ones who count as "authorities"?