This might go in general questions, but I assume it will get sidetracked, so I’m putting it here.
What is the logical fallacy that is probably some subset of appeal to authority, where a person who has been through some great trauma or act of bravery, whether it has anything to do with the issue at hand or not, is never to be questioned?
I posted a bit on another thread about Bruno Bettelheim and his “refrigerator mother” theory of autism.
Something I didn’t post on the other thread was that Bettelheim was a concentration camp survivor, and this was frequently invoked around the time his theory was finally being debunked. It went something like “He knows about suffering, so he understands the suffering of these children.” There’s a little question begging there, in that no one has demonstrated the children ARE suffering (or were, before they were subjected to his therapy).
I’ve seen this in other contexts, where suffering is supposed to grant wisdom, and in a spiritual paradigm, it might, but that doesn’t carry over to the paradigm of logic. The TV was still full of commercials of vets who had lost a limb talking about how we needed to stay in Iraq and finish what we started, c. 2006-8. They weren’t necessarily anymore knowledgeable of the politics of conflict that any random vet, but having lost a limb somehow added weight to their argument (?) If anything, they were less trustworthy, because one would assume their opinion would be colored by personal anger-- but I guess we weren’t expected to think that far.
Anyway, does this have a name, or is it just a special case of “appeal to authority” that you have to explain?