The "authority fallacy" is also a class-based fallacy

 Those in positions of "authority" overwhelmingly hail from—or belong to—the "upper social classes" or, at the very least, the middle classes. A constant appeal to (one's own) "authority"—primarily defined through bureaucratic channels, though even if it were determined by impeccable merit—suggests (according to those who cling to this fallacy) that individuals with less formal education, or those not in positions of authority, cannot freely debate or converse with those who are highly educated or hold "authority." It implies they are destined for a passive role—eternal subordinates listening to the commands and "teachings" of "chairs" often "self-selected" based on criteria way more subjective than they ought to be (especially in higher education), such as ideological compatibility and a propensity for absolute subordination to the field's "authorities," rather than a simple, fundamental, and genuine vocation (intrinsic motivation and talent). It acts as if one's level of education or authority—even when determined in a biased manner by non-objective criteria—were the deciding factor regarding the most crucial intellectual capabilities, particularly rationality, which is paramount in debates. It is evident, therefore, that true "authority on a subject" is not established solely or primarily by the professional hierarchy one has attained—even if that seems the most obvious metric, precisely because subjective gaps often influence that ranking. Rather, it is defined by the actual level of expertise or knowledge achieved, regardless of whether that aligns with the individual's social standing. And this level of knowledge encompasses not merely technical or specialized information, but also a developed capacity for logical-rational thought—a capacity that is, at times, even more important...