I think the whole point of a fallacy is to say an argument isn't supported by it premises. So it's not that a fallacious way of thinking can't be right. The point wasn't actually made or supported within the context of the argument so we should question the conclusion. Usually it just means that wording is wrong or the premise needs to be changed to not cause a logical error. In NL's example of the appeal to authority, it's not even an appeal to authority because the doctor does have a right to make reliable claims about the subject he/she studied in. An actual example of appeal to authority would be if someone asked NL why he though apples were healthy and all he said in response was "Well because Donald Trump said so". Here the authority he appeals to should not be a reliable source of nutritional info and since this is all the justification NL has for why apples are healthy we haven't really learned what makes apples healthy just that Donald Trump thinks so. Just use this valid but fallacious argument format to prove anything. P1: X P2: -X Conclusion: literally anything P1: Chocolate exists P2: Chocolate does not exist Conclusion: I am god That's a valid argument
