Scientific Consensus makes it true! Really?

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You made more out of the article. He just showed how consensus is and always has been a bad way to argue correctness of science until science becomes a Law of Science. Evol has not become a Law of Science and can't ever become one. They used to think the world was flat too and was blasphemy worth death and other examples he mentioned. That is not a straw man argument. IT is just plain and simply showing consensus as proof of science as accurate is not an accurate infallible way of proof. Pretty simple really. I hear it all the time and it is bad argument. It has proven history of fallibility.

Darwin was a Christian when he wrote his book Origin of Species a few years later the works of Gregor Mendel was also published. Mendel had been a Christian as well if I remember correctly. If Darwin had been wrong, do you think that Mendels work which would become the foundation for genetics would not have proven him wrong?

 

[Amandi]

I have always said the Theory of Evolution. I dont believe it is a scientific fact. I believe it comes closest to explaining what we understand.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Like the theory of gravity.

Theories are incredibly well tested and provide robust utility in predictive capacity. That's how science works.

 

[ttechsan]

My last question though was, Have you not used or seen it used and probably often, that due to the consensus of the scientific community that indicates one should believe the Theory or Fact however you phrase it Evolution?
If honest you will admit YES.
The whole point was that is not a good nor a scientific argument to be used in this debate period! End of story!

 

[Revoltingest]

Lets see how this argument we hear from evolutionist really stands up!
Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus

I'm late to this party....
Science is not about truth, since all theories are subject to revision.
As Geo Box said (paraphrasing), all theories are wrong, but some are useful.
Consensus speaks only to usefulness.

 

[dust1n]

My last question though was, Have you not used or seen it used and probably often, that due to the consensus of the scientific community that indicates one should believe the Theory or Fact however you phrase it Evolution?
If honest you will admit YES.
The whole point was that is not a good nor a scientific argument to be used in this debate period! End of story!

Ok, it isn't. But no one here is basing their understanding of evolution on the consensus of the scientific community. I've never used it. I'm sure I've heard or seen someone use an argument of the sort at some period of time, but that remains wholly irrelevant to me when determining the veracity of various theories that fall under the umbrella term of "evolution."

 

[Amandi]

Now here is a list of over 660 scientist over the world in so many fields that disagree with Darwinism. They are not all Christian or Creationist. They just disagree with the science of evol and Darwinism. Interestingly they are from so many fields. The cell shows so much Design, Engineering, Programming etc all areas of science can learn.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Enjoy

By following the link I see a list of people who supposedly "Are skeptical for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life and think that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." That is a far cry from "disagreeing with Darwinism".

 

[Amandi]

My last question though was, Have you not used or seen it used and probably often, that due to the consensus of the scientific community that indicates one should believe the Theory or Fact however you phrase it Evolution?
If honest you will admit YES.
The whole point was that is not a good nor a scientific argument to be used in this debate period! End of story!

I will say yes if we change the believe I bolded and underlined to accept. However, this is not the end of the story. I accept all science until proven otherwise.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

No I have to say I have seen the argument that 'almost all scientists believe it' used before; in discussions (they arent debates) about evolution and the climate much like used to occur when trying to convince people smoking was bad for you.

The reason that this phrase gets used is because an ideologically motivated (and often commercially reinforced) segment of the community is attempting to pretend that the science is in question by funding intentionally misleading studies and articles etc (the tabacco industry was famous for it). 'Almost all scientists support it' is code, a legally acceptable way of saying 'all non corrupt and non crackpot scientists accept it because there is no scientifically sound basis to suggest it is not true.' It sounds like an argument from popularity but it is not - it is a legally defensible way of pointing out that detractors may not have completely legitimate scientific grounds for their opposition (without devolving into a mode of discourse that might be considered slander).

edit:
I apologize for the use of the term crackpot - I instead should have said individuals who are incompetent in attempts to apply the scientific method where the results indicate a conclusion they dislike. Its irrational (from a scientist) but not necessarily a sign of some sort of insanity. My apoloies.

 

[Skwim]

Did you even read the article? Here is another one for you on Qualifications.

Apologetics Press - "You Creationists are Not Qualified to Discuss Such Matters!"

Make sure and read first

Just another creationist straw man.

From the linked article.

"A common quibble laid at the feet of the creationist is that he/she is not qualified to speak about scientific matters relating to the creation/evolution controversy."
​

No, this is not a common quibble. I've been around the creationist/evolution controversy for quite a few years and can't remember a single time anyone has said such a thing. Based on their comments, a creationist may have been told that they are confused, misinformed, or just plain ignorant, but not that they are "unqualified to "speak about scientific matters relating to the creation/evolution controversy." In fact, often it's precisely because of their confusion, misinformation, and ignorance that makes them essential to the "creation/evolution controversy." Where it not for these people the controversy would be practically non-existent. So they are eminently qualified to speak on the subject . . . just not in a knowledgeable way.

"For instance, Mark Isaak, the editor of The Index to Creationist Claims, stated that “for every creationist who claims one thing, there are dozens of scientists (probably more), all with far greater professional qualifications, who say the opposite” (2005, emp. added). "
​

Which is very true. Because creationists have only a single hook on which to hang their creation assertions--their faith in the literal reading of a single book---and knowing that "creation is true because the Bible tells me so" is hardly a cogent argument, they must resort to proving evolution wrong. However, this means entering the arena of science, where, unfortunately almost all are out out of their league. Hence the reason Isaak's remark is right on point. It's just a simple fact that "“for every creationist who claims one thing, there are dozens of scientists (probably more), all with far greater professional qualifications, who say the opposite." It's a fact of life, creationists are not as well equipped as scientists, nor have the evidence, to argue in the science arena.

"Others assert that creationists make “the elementary mistake of trying to discuss a highly specialized field…in which they have little or no training” (Holloway, 2010). Do these assertions have any merit?"
​

As pointed out above, this is very true. And, an excellent example of just this fact is the author of this nonsense; Jeff Miller, Ph.D. a biomechanical engineer who, not only lacks a formal education in evolution, but also seems to lack the basic reasoning skills taught in logic 101, a not uncommon liability among creationists.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Lets see how this argument we hear from evolutionist really stands up!

Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus

The consensus doesn't make it true, although the consensus almost certainly exists (and is overwhelming as it is) because of the preponderance of evidence and explanatory power the ToE enjoys.

 

[outhouse]

Lets see how this argument we hear from evolutionist really stands up!

:slap:

Your just embarrassing yourself.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All science is based on the scientific consensus.

No science has ever been based in consensus, as this is antithetical to the scientific methods. When it happens, it is a bad thing. Consensus (in any academic field, not just the sciences) is almost always a great indicator of accuracy, but the sciences are based upon empiricism and reasoning.

That is how it works.

Only if the system is broken.

If new facts come forward to change the scientific consensus then the scientific belief will change.

Usually whatever there is a consensus on is so broad that it is largely trivial. The exceptions are those issues that can be sold to the public (like evolution or climate change), and even for scientific research sold to the public via newspapers or online articles, the consensus is only invoked when it comes to political/social issues (I recall far too many reports about brain research, but no matter what inaccuracies these reports included consensus was not among them).

The importance of consensus comes from an ideal: even with ideological biases, for a consensus to exist in the sciences requires a large number of specialists whose research areas are related and who agree that the empirical studies, the critiques and reviews of these, and the replication of these (including alternate methods used to test the same hypothesis or hypotheses) are all sufficiently convincing. Consensus is what matters for the non-specialist. If one isn't acquainted with some field of research then one can either do an enormous amount of research or one can see if a consensus exists. If a consensus does exists, it's the next best thing to actually having the technical knowledge (not to mention time, energy, and motivation) to review the technical literature.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Lets see how this argument we hear from evolutionist really stands up!

We've been doing that since Darwin. If you want to hear how well the arguments "stand up", read the research. An article that claims evolutionary theory relies on argumentum ad populum is wrong at virtually every level. First, "evolution" is not really a theory (at least in the way that most understand the term), but a framework in which countless hypotheses have been tested and their results incorporated and integrated into evolutionary studies and upon which entire fields of research are based (such as evolutionary psychology). It is a theory in perhaps the true sense of the word that is almost never communicated in popular discourse: it is a framework built upon empirical and logical foundations that is used not only to inform further investigations and the interpretations of these but tie into countless other research areas and theories. There is perhaps no topic so thoroughly examined in so many ways as evolution, for it is a part of virtually all the sciences (from computer science to astrophysics) and intrinsic to many (as well as the basis for some). It is "just a theory" in the way that quantum physics is "just a theory".

 

[Sunstone]

....but the sciences are based upon empiricism and reasoning.

That's very true, Legion, but if you think about it, the sciences are based upon empiricism and reasoning because empiricism and reasoning are inter-subjectively verifiable. That's to say, it is no accident that those two things form a basis for science. Metaphysics would form a basis for science if metaphysics were inter-subjectively verifiable -- but it's not. In effect, what crucially distinguished science from so much else, is that it seeks verification rather than, say, mere agreement. And it can use only empirical evidence and logical reasoning (including mathematics) to achieve that verification. Metaphysics, it can't use.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Like creationists regarding most things, you've got it backwards. Scientific consensus doesn't make something true - scientific consensus is usually formed because something is true. And, like most creationists, an actual understanding of evolutionary theory would go a long way in understanding why it is an accurate and useful scientific theory. However, like most rationalists, I won't hold my breath.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Lets see how this argument we hear from evolutionist really stands up!

Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus

Would seem to be quite the strawman. The arugument could easily be made that most catholics believe _______, therefore we should not accept _____ because it is the concensus.

Scientist do not believe in evolution because it is the concensus, it's the concensus among scientist because more of them than not believe it.

You shouldn't believe it because it's the concensus, you should believe it because you have spent 20 years studying a lifetime worth of evidence and have demonstrated to yourself that it is the best explaination.

If you can't spend the time to become an expert in the field, you should leave it to those that are experts.

If you can't leave it to those that know, then saying the experts are wrong because most of them agree would seem to be a rather ignorant position. A reasonable postion might be to tentatively take the word of those that are educated on the subject.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In effect, what crucially distinguished science from so much else, is that it seeks verification rather than, say, mere agreement. And it can use only empirical evidence and logical reasoning (including mathematics) to achieve that verification.

That is absolutely true. I use Aristotle's mechanics as my go to example of how far from science reasoning without empiricism is. That's why consensus is a great guide. But it is of vital important (IMO) to understand why scientific consensus is informative, but also that this doesn't mean we cannot (or should not) assert the following:

All science is based on the scientific consensus. That is how it works.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You made more out of the article. He just showed how consensus is and always has been a bad way to argue correctness of science until science becomes a Law of Science. Evol has not become a Law of Science and can't ever become one. They used to think the world was flat too and was blasphemy worth death and other examples he mentioned. That is not a straw man argument. IT is just plain and simply showing consensus as proof of science as accurate is not an accurate infallible way of proof. Pretty simple really. I hear it all the time and it is bad argument. It has proven history of fallibility.

I don't think he makes a thoughtful argument, though I do agree that consensus is not strong evidence for the truth of a thing. However, lacking personal experience with a subject, consensus among the experts certainly is strong evidence for lay persons. E.g. I don't tend to doubt Webster's definitions, even though I have personal expereince with many particular terms.

The establishment of a truth comes from observations of individuals. When more learned individuals agree on a truth, based on personal observations, a consensus is formed. The consensus is as good as the personal observations of the 100s, 1000s, or millions of personal observations of these experts. Are they 100% accurate? Never! Are they more reliable than any alterneative? Always!

 

[Ouroboros]

Lets see how this argument we hear from evolutionist really stands up!

Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus

I don't believe in evolution because other scientists believe it.

I believe evolution to be true simply because I took a couple of physical anthropology classes and one of them a lab where I had to study fossils. I read and studied the evidence. That's why I know it's true.