Also, it does not apply when the authority has legitimacy. If a doctor told you to take medicine, or an engineer said a bridge plan was safe, you are justified in listening to them.
If two doctors say different things, which should you listen to?
If the FDA says the Pfizer vaccine is safe, but the BMJ says the FDA inappropriately approved it on basis of manipulated data, which authority "has legitimacy"?
So we are comparing and contrasting the "legitimacy" of David Reich versus the specific individuals on the board of directors of the ASHG. Your entire argument is that the latter necessarily trumps the former. You have no other argument of substance. "The board of directors of this institution have more legitimacy than an acknowledged expert in his field" is the entirety of your argument.
So when an official position comes from a flagship journal of a discipline, you are justified in taking it seriously.
This nobody thinks they have better knowledge of genetics than the experts who wrote this summary in an academic journal.
Ad hominem attack in calling me a "nobody."
Because they read a NY Times op ed from Reich,
I've also done thousands of hours of research and analysis, dealing directly with genomic data including ancient samples.
who they ironically cite as an authority, making the exact fallacy they complained about since its a NY Times op Ed, not a publication in a top journal on the topic.
I never stated, "Reich says this so it is therefore automatically right." The argument is that Reich saying this indicates that the casual dismissal by social scientists that real human biological categories that be called 'races' exist is not made with awareness of ongoing and recent controversy on this matter among geneticists.
You're claiming that Reich's explanation somehow doesn't matter at all
...See full post, or cannot be understood as representing an expert view within genetics, because the board of directors of a professional body issued an a\s\s-covering political statement.
You're a nobody who has never analyzed any of this in any meaningful way and you believe you understand genetics better than David Reich because you read a political statement issued by a professional body.