The Argument from Authority: Why We Fall for Bullshit in a Lab Coat

Why do we believe something simply because someone in a white coat says it’s true? Or because it came from a blue checkmark, a bestselling author, or someone with “PhD” in their email signature?

Because—quite simply—it feels safer than thinking for ourselves.

From a functional contextual perspective, belief isn’t just about what’s “true.” Belief is behavior. And behavior is shaped by context, reinforcement, and history. When we accept an idea because it came from an “authority,” we’re often doing what works socially or emotionally, not what best approximates truth or functionality.

And that, my friends, is the soil in which bullshit grows.

The Seduction of Authority

Let’s be clear: not all appeals to authority are invalid. If someone has trained for decades in a domain, it’s pragmatic to give their input some weight. But the argument from authority becomes bullshit when authority is used as a substitute for reasoning, evidence, or contextual understanding. This is exactly what philosopher Harry Frankfurt warned us about in his book On Bullshit. Bullshit doesn’t care about truth—it cares about impression. It’s indifferent to whether a statement is true or false, so long as it persuades, performs, or fits the narrative.

When we take someone's status or credentials as a reason to believe, without critically examining the content, we participate in this bullshit economy.

We’re Wired for This

Classic psychological experiments illustrate just how prone we are to obey authority:

• Milgram’s obedience study (1963) showed that people were willing to administer what they thought were lethal electric shocks to another person, simply because an authority figure told them to. (To note this study presents ethical concerns in regard to how participants were treated and data was reported)

• Asch’s conformity experiments demonstrated that people will deny obvious visual evidence if the group (or an authority in the group) says otherwise.

In these studies, belief and action were shaped not by facts or reasoning, but by social pressure, group dynamics, and perceived legitimacy.

From a functional contextualist lens, this makes sense. Humans evolved in tight social groups where status and hierarchy mattered. Questioning authority could get you excluded—or worse. So, we developed verbal behaviors like “defer to the expert” or “go with the group” because they often worked in those environments. But in the modern world—where information is complex, contradictory, and sometimes weaponized—those same patterns can lead us astray.

Bullshit Wears a Suit and Tie

Today, bullshit doesn’t just come from self-proclaimed gurus and influencers. It also flows from think tanks, academic institutions, and boardrooms. When institutions become more invested in maintaining power or image than in seeking functional or empirical truths, authority becomes performance—and the message becomes noise.

A title doesn’t make a claim true. A PhD doesn’t grant immunity from flawed logic, motivated reasoning, or ideological capture. Yet we continue to outsource thinking to these figures because it feels easier, safer, or more certain. In reality, it’s just more efficient for our nervous systems to nod along than to pause, examine, and engage in effortful reflection.

Groupthink and the Machinery of Belief

Social psychology shows us that group processes further reinforce this trap. Once an authoritative voice has spoken, group members often self-censor, conform, or double-down to maintain cohesion. Belief systems become embedded in institutional structures, media ecosystems, and professional silos. Challenging them feels not just rebellious—it feels wrong.

From a contextual standpoint, beliefs aren’t private “mental stuff”—they’re verbal behaviors shaped by history, community, and reinforcement. And when groups organize around an authority figure or an ideology, they often form closed loops of verbal reinforcement that insulate themselves from scrutiny. This makes bullshit hard to dislodge.

Toward a Functional Approach to Knowing

So what do we do?

We stop asking “Who said this?” and start asking “What is this doing?”Is this statement helping me engage with reality in a useful way? Is it predictive, workable, or falsifiable? Does it improve functioning in context?

That’s the functional contextualist question—not “Is it true in some metaphysical sense?” but “Does this help us navigate the world in more effective, flexible, and adaptive ways?”

This approach demands critical thought, empirical attention, and a healthy suspicion of power. It requires us to step outside the comfort of authority and into the discomfort of doubt. But it also gives us a way to cut through the noise, sidestep the bullshit, and relate more truthfully to the world.

Final Words

In an age saturated with data, credentials, and carefully curated personas, the argument from authority is one of the most seductive forms of bullshit. It gives us an excuse not to think, not to question, and not to feel the uncertainty of not knowing.

But wisdom doesn’t come from status. It comes from awareness, curiosity, and contextual sensitivity.

And if Beyond Bullshit stands for anything, it’s this: authority is no substitute for truth—especially when truth is messy, evolving, and always tied to the context in which we live, act, and speak.