B D Finch Aug 5, 2009:

I think that it means presenting an argument as valid on the basis of claiming an authority for it that is actually invalid. For example, if I wanted to argue that something was true and cited a paper (that either didn't exist, or that did exist but did not support my argument), by Prof. X of Cambridge University . The use of Cambridge as a source that would impress the victim of my argument and the convincing way I name dropped would both constitute an autorité douteuse. On the other hand, it could entail using a study that was real, perhaps well-known and appeared to support my argument, but had been discredited.

joehlindsay Aug 4, 2009:

sorry I meant 'concealed'.

joehlindsay Aug 4, 2009:

I think they may mean a tactic of bad faith where the party responsible is unclear or convealed and can be denied if convenient.

Crystal Samples (asker) Aug 4, 2009:

No. Sorry philgoddard. It's not mentioned anywhere else in the presentation. I, too, hope that someone out there might know the definition of this term, either in French or in English.

philgoddard Aug 4, 2009:

Can anyone explain (perhaps in French) what this means? That way we might get closer to a proper translation. For example, Crystal, is it discussed anywhere else in the presentation?