Courtier’s reply is a response to an argument by rejecting the authority of the person that makes the argument. The opponent’s experience, knowledge, and relevance in the field is denied by the person that commits this fallacy. Most often it occurs when one is criticized and without a proper defense, the courtier’s reply is used.
The problem with this fallacy is that the opponent may just as well be inexperienced. Even if it is so, there is no evidence that the opponent’s lack of expertise will make the claims not legit. Courtier’s reply does not prove that the conversation requires expertise, it only rejects authority.
The name of this fallacy is introduced by the biologist PZ Myers while commenting on a debate about God. He defended one of the debaters that was criticized for his lack of knowledge in theology. Although this fallacy got its name in 2006, it was known as a rhetoric tactic even in Ancient Greece.
Example 1:
Speaker A: “I don’t think Trump’s approach to world politics is effective.”
Speaker B: “What do you know? You’re not a politician. You have no right to judge his decisions.”
Example 2:
Speaker A: “I’m telling you man, if you use a lighter in this room there will be an explosion. Can’t you smell the gas?”
Speaker B: “Oh, so you suddenly have a PhD in Chemistry right? Let me light my cigarette in peace.”
The examples are clearly jokes but they show the absurdity of the courtier’s reply. In reality, the courtier’s reply is committed when a debate requires academics from different fields. Rejecting other areas of expertise leads to this kind of response.
It is evident that the courtier’s reply is a form of an appeal to authority. More so, a negation of the appeal to authority. When the courtier’s reply is made, the speaker is appealing to authority by rejecting the opponent as an authority.