Argumentum ad populum

[Polymath257]

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context. Other authors consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.

But the *primary* means of supporting evolution is NOT the argument from authority. It is the argument from observation.

The problem is that to understand what the observations mean requires training and education. So, the authorities are convinced, not by other authorities, but by the observational evidence. Others, who do not have the training to understand that evidence in detail, have to rely on the authorities.

As an example, I am a mathematician. If I doubt a particular mathematical claim, I look to the source and see if the proof is good or not. But I have been trained by decades of experience how to read and analyze mathematical proofs. Others without that training wouldn't even be able to understand the first line of most research articles in math.

So, if you are interested in a particular math result, you have two options: either get the training to evaluate the articles yourself, or rely on an authority to let you know. Since the training is expensive and difficult, most people rely on the authorities.

The same is true for other subjects. You *can* train in biology and do the relevant labs or field work yourself. But that takes a lot of time, money, and hard work. Unless you want to go through that, the next best option is to rely on an authority that *has* done that work.

Ultimately, though, the basis of their authority is that they have done the lab or field work and analyzed the data. And that is a legitimate basis for their authority.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

2. Scientists do not know how when and where ERVs originated, and what role they play in evolution.
Scientists can only make guesses, speculations, assumptions, suggestions, supposition and propositions, when answering these questions.
Human endogenous retroviruses
There are two proposals for how HERVs became fixed in the human genome. The first assumes that sometime during human evolution, exogenous progenitors of HERV inserted themselves into germ line cells and then replicated along with the host's genes using and exploiting the host's cellular mechanisms. Because of their distinct genomic structure, HERVs were subjected to many rounds of amplification and transposition, which lead to a widespread distribution of retroviral DNA. The second hypothesis claims the continuous evolution of retro-elements from more simple structured ancestors.

This doesn't even contradict anything I have said.

You see these words in the first? "sometime during human evolution," Does this specifically state that apes were not along the lines of "human evolution?" Nope. It also assumes evolution! And the second also contains evolution and ancestry in its base description.

Neither of these contradict the idea that exact virus and placement are present in over a hundred thousand locations along both human and other ape species' DNA. And BOTH of these display that the way you get that kind of distribution is through INHERITANCE.

I don't dance very well. I would like to though.

Do you honestly think yourself clever or something?

 

[Polymath257]

Well let's assume that God did it. Several lines of investigation arrives at the same conclusion. Do you object?

Exactly how does the assumption that God did it lead to those specific predictions? Remember the predictions have to be clear, testable, and prior to the collection of the data. The hypothesis cannot be equally consistent with contrary data, for example.

We have been through this before.
Back to the OP. Any further objections. Your point / argument has been challenged. What say you, in response.

Already replied.

 

[nPeace]

You have a disease. You will die soon if you do nothing.

100,000,000 doctors tell you, you should take medicine X, and you will be cured. But do not take medicine Y, or you will die

1 doctor tells you you should take medicine Y.

What will you do and why, assuming you have no clue of medicine?

Ciao

- viole

This one is child's play.
You don't accept links, so I can't answer with information.
Two words - blood transactions.
Been there, done that.

 

[viole]

This one is child's play.
You don't accept links, so I can't answer with information.
Two words - blood transactions.
Been there, done that.

What does it mean? Blood transactions? You mean like in a blood bank?

Medicine X, or Y?

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

This doesn't even contradict anything I have said.

You see these words in the first? "sometime during human evolution," Does this specifically state that apes were not along the lines of "human evolution?" Nope. It also assumes evolution! And the second also contains evolution and ancestry in its base description.

Neither of these contradict the idea that exact virus and placement are present in over a hundred thousand locations along both human and other ape species DNA. And BOTH of these display that the way you get that kind of distribution is through INHERITANCE.


Do you honestly think yourself clever or something?

The point is, ERVs are not the supporting factor, in your argument.
If you want to argue from another angle, so be it.

You seem to honestly think you are clever.
Is that question suppose to be suggesting that you are more clever... madam?

 

[nPeace]

What does it mean? Blood transactions? You mean like in a blood bank?

Medicine X, or Y?

Ciao

- viole

100,000,000 surgeons - No blood transfusion. You die.
1 surgeon - No blood - No problem.

Went with the one surgeon - alive, and well.

 

[nPeace]

Exactly how does the assumption that God did it lead to those specific predictions? Remember the predictions have to be clear, testable, and prior to the collection of the data. The hypothesis cannot be equally consistent with contrary data, for example.


Already replied.

The same way the assumption that LUCA did it, led to those specific predictions.
Naturalism does not check for God, so we do that ourselves - our methods.

I didn't see your response. I'll check again.

 

[nPeace]

But the *primary* means of supporting evolution is NOT the argument from authority. It is the argument from observation.

The problem is that to understand what the observations mean requires training and education. So, the authorities are convinced, not by other authorities, but by the observational evidence. Others, who do not have the training to understand that evidence in detail, have to rely on the authorities.

As an example, I am a mathematician. If I doubt a particular mathematical claim, I look to the source and see if the proof is good or not. But I have been trained by decades of experience how to read and analyze mathematical proofs. Others without that training wouldn't even be able to understand the first line of most research articles in math.

So, if you are interested in a particular math result, you have two options: either get the training to evaluate the articles yourself, or rely on an authority to let you know. Since the training is expensive and difficult, most people rely on the authorities.

The same is true for other subjects. You *can* train in biology and do the relevant labs or field work yourself. But that takes a lot of time, money, and hard work. Unless you want to go through that, the next best option is to rely on an authority that *has* done that work.

Ultimately, though, the basis of their authority is that they have done the lab or field work and analyzed the data. And that is a legitimate basis for their authority.

I don't know how you arrived at the OP saying, "the *primary* means of supporting evolution is the argument from authority...".
Perhaps you can show me which part of the OP makes that suggestion.

No, you did not address the argument against your claim.
Perhaps there is some misunderstanding.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's interesting that you guys keep bringing one thing after another, to say, that evolution has been proven.
If it's not ERVs, it's Ring Species, or Chromosome 2, or Horology, or Transitional fossils...

Can't you make up your mind?
If there is no question, for one thing, then you can stick to it. There is no need to hop from one to the other.

Oh my goodness.....did he really just complain that "evolutionists" have too much diverse evidence to cite? For the love of.....

 

[Jose Fly]

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context. Other authors consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.

One has to wonder then why courts call "expert witnesses" to testify on technical subjects, rather than just pulling in random people off the street.

 

[Windwalker]

How oft do people hear a response like...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
T\
What has that got to do with anything?
Especially in a debate, why is that relevant? It's nothing but a fallacy.

It has a great deal to do with reality. If someone is an expert in a field, their opinions matter more than your opinion not being an expert. If you have teams of experts, all saying the same things, than it is an expert consensus opinion. And that really, really does matter.

So it is completely relevant, unless you don't like what the experts say, and come up with some lame excuse to dismiss them in order to rationalize sticking your head in the sand. In which case then, using a logic fallacy against having to listen to legitimate arguments, is itself a fallacy.

 

[Jose Fly]

@nPeace, it sounds as if you more or less see scientists as "the enemy." Could you explain why?

He's a Jehovah's Witness. Have you ever seen any JW not be anti-science?

 

[Jose Fly]

The point is, ERVs are not the supporting factor, in your argument.

Because nPeace at Religious Forums says so? Why do you think your assertions and declarations about evolutionary biology carry any weight at all?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He's a Jehovah's Witness. Have you ever seen any JW not be anti-science?

Isn't that one of the foundational principles? The second always seems to be argumentum ad Duning Kruger.

 

[Jose Fly]

Isn't that one of the foundational principles? The second always seems to be argumentum ad Duning Kruger.

It certainly looks that way. And to tie this in with the "evangelists knocking at your door" thread, their ridiculous anti-science positions make them easy marks for rather interesting discussions when they come to your door. All you have to do is invite them in, ask them what their position on evolution is, and then start countering their talking points with actual data (being prepared helps greatly). It's fascinating to see their reactions when they realize they can't ignore or wave away what you're showing them (as they habitually do here). For weirdos like me, it's seriously fun!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It certainly looks that way. And to tie this in with the "evangelists knocking at your door" thread, their ridiculous anti-science positions make them easy marks for rather interesting discussions when they come to your door. All you have to do is invite them in, ask them what their position on evolution is, and then start countering their talking points with actual data (being prepared helps greatly). It's fascinating to see their reactions when they realize they can't ignore or wave away what you're showing them (as they habitually do here). For weirdos like me, it's seriously fun!

It is seriously fun.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But the *primary* means of supporting evolution is NOT the argument from authority. It is the argument from observation.

The problem is that to understand what the observations mean requires training and education. So, the authorities are convinced, not by other authorities, but by the observational evidence. Others, who do not have the training to understand that evidence in detail, have to rely on the authorities.

As an example, I am a mathematician. If I doubt a particular mathematical claim, I look to the source and see if the proof is good or not. But I have been trained by decades of experience how to read and analyze mathematical proofs. Others without that training wouldn't even be able to understand the first line of most research articles in math.

So, if you are interested in a particular math result, you have two options: either get the training to evaluate the articles yourself, or rely on an authority to let you know. Since the training is expensive and difficult, most people rely on the authorities.

The same is true for other subjects. You *can* train in biology and do the relevant labs or field work yourself. But that takes a lot of time, money, and hard work. Unless you want to go through that, the next best option is to rely on an authority that *has* done that work.

Ultimately, though, the basis of their authority is that they have done the lab or field work and analyzed the data. And that is a legitimate basis for their authority.

I have been having some car trouble, so I took out a loan and start mechanics school next week. It's going to be difficult juggling that with my job, family and the electrician, medical, dental and political science degrees I am currently pursuing so that I can understand problems I have in those areas. In the meantime, I know a fry cook and he is helping me with my car. I wish there was a better, more efficient system for these things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Man is a descendant of other ape species. No question. A Vestigial Mote

And of course apes have more genetic diversity between family members, than we have in the entire human race for absolutely no reason

No, not for "absolutely no reason". Why make that claim? You may not know the reason but that does not mean that there is no reason. You should look into the human population bottleneck. That there is no clear reason as to why is all that you can say.

 

[icehorse]

Argumentum ad populum
When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority

You're conflating ideas.