Argumentum ad populum

[tas8831]

bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced

 

[tas8831]

How oft do people hear a response like...

Not as often as we hear people say "1 billion Christians cannot be wrong!"

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton the anti-science medical doctor who has never done research? Well, if he says so, it MUST be true!

You reject the argumentum ad populum, but EMBRACE the argumentum ad verecundiam.

That is a creationist favorite.

 

[tas8831]

This is a semantical argument.

Now days only Peers get a vote and the general public and every individual in it are ignored.

Then we get appeals to the "consensus" of the Peers.

I know you will not do so, for to do so will reveal your level of ignorance/deception, but what do YOU think "peer" means in "peer review"?

And if "peers" 'getting a vote' is bad, whom do you suggest should 'get a vote'? Anti-science zealots? Religious fanatics? People who think 'dream it up and assert it science' is REAL science? People who think 10 paragraphs of assertions are actually evidence? People who want to be thought of as having expertise on the anatomy and physiology of language but who call the motor speech area "broccas area" and thing creatures can just grown one?

I remember several years ago when populist right-wing tea bagger Eric Cantor thought 'the people' should have a say in what scientific research proposals get funded, and he put grant application abstracts (just the abstracts) on his website and invited people to chime in.
Right-wing bible kooks, of course, sought out any abstract with the word "evolution" in it and attacked it. Even Cantor eventually realized that it was a bad idea for the ignorami to 'vote' on scientific projects.




People who bash science are people that are generally too egotistical, ignorant and unwilling to learn what it takes to actually engage in scientific pursuits.

 

[tas8831]

"Sudden" simply means in a brief period of time. Of course this depends on perspective. From the perspective of the individual it occurs in moments or seconds and from that of species it means less than two generations.

How does it occur in an individual?
And in "less than" two generations - how does that produce a new species?

If we have mutation in one individual, and it mates with a 'normal' individual, please explain what the odds are that the offspring will possess the new trait.

I can wait.

No. "Evolution" is a word with only connotations and no definitions.

The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Change in Species is not driven by "survival of the fittest".

What is "survival of the fittest" in your fantasy?


It is amazing how you are wrong about pretty much everything your claim re: evolution/biology/genetics.

But then, you have said you are self-taught.

The self-taught suffer doubly, both by having a crummy instructor and by getting a sub-par education.

 

[tas8831]

Secondly, Darwin never said that populations are stable over the long term - just that they CAN be stable.

He did in the first edition.

Here you go - prove it. Because, golly, when I did a keyword search, neither "stable" nor "population" shows up...

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

 

[cladking]

And if "peers" 'getting a vote' is bad, whom do you suggest should 'get a vote'?

NOBODY gets a vote about reality. We determine reality through experiment, NOT VOTE.

And in "less than" two generations - how does that produce a new species?

...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR.

When very few individuals survive because of a shared behavior that is unusual to that species they breed a new species.

The self-taught suffer doubly, both by having a crummy instructor and by getting a sub-par education.

I did have a poor teacher but then he had a poor student anyway. I never tried to learn facts but how and why things worked. I am a generalist or as some might say; a nexialist.

The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

There is no evidence for or experiment that shows gradual evolution. All observed changes in life at every level and type is sudden.

 

[cladking]

People who bash science are people that are generally too egotistical, ignorant and unwilling to learn what it takes to actually engage in scientific pursuits.

I don't agree with this statement but is is wholly irrelevant. I have never bashed science in my entire life. I have bashed Egyptology but they aren't science at all. I have bashed "soup of the day science" and Look and See Science but they aren't really science either.

Indeed, the moment someone tells you what is and what is not you can be sure it is not science at all. It is someone's misunderstanding of experiment or statistics. It is someone who is not familiar with metaphysics or epistemology. It is just might be someone who believe that support of peers has a bearing on anything other than their pecking order or funding.

 

[cladking]

Do you or do you not understand that "evolution" is the word we give to the process of allele frequency changes over time in living populations, and that this is an observed, proven phenomenon?

But you can't show this in bears, humans, or any higher life form.

Okay. So can you provide evidence that dramatic evolutionary changes only occur over periods of less than two generations?

Dog, cats, farm animals, and crops.

True, but this process also occurs in nature - just not normally as quickly. A natural, selective process results in less favourable (for survival) traits being gradually removed from the gene pool, and more favourable traits pervading.

You are making assumptions consistent with Darwin's beliefs.

Now you're just rambling. Do you or do you not accept that there are aspects of our biology that don't affect behaviour but may affect our likelihood to survive and/or pass on our genes?

Of course I do. But these have very very little effect on change in species.

 

[cladking]

Or when you wrote about neuroanatomy and it came across like a 5th grader, complete with incorrect spellings and the notion that creatures can just up and decide to grow a part of their brain. Or when you are asked for evidence and you write 5 paragraphs of unsupported assertions.

We don't really "decide" to grow a broccas area. In a sense we do because "decide" is just one of those words with an infinite number of definitions and individuals do acquire language through intent. In order to acquire language we "grow a brocas area". This varies in position from individual to individual because we are all at a loss to figure the best place for it. Very few even realize they are doing it of course. When we turn 2 we all start growing billions of connections in the brain. These would all be used to speak metaphysical language but we are force fed modern language and must learn it instead. We grow a Broca's Area which acts as a translator between the digital speech center and the now analog higher brain functions. These higher brain functions used to be digital as well and no translation was required. Babies and ancient people don't think like us but we can no longer teach them metaphysical language so they grow a Broccas area. They grow it because they must. Then they think just like we do; Homo Omnisciencis and we're so proud because we think and therefore exist and we think we're so smart. It's win, win, win and then we hold elections to determine reality and ignore anomalies that are almost invisible anyway since we see only what we believe.

What's not to be proud of?

 

[ecco]

Without commenting on your "two generations" assertion, I'd still like to see your definition of "species". No Google cut and pastes.

As I said, there's really not such a thing as "species" and there are merely collections of similar individuals. No two individuals have exactly the same genes. It is this individuality of life and consciousness which leads to change in "species". The concept of origin of species is an absurdity since individuals have origins and are never exactly like their parents and can be so different as to not even really constitute the same "species". New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior.

I seriously doubt that any "definition" of "species" can account for the complexity of the reality of the groupings of life that exist.

I define a "generation" as the length of time required from conception to the average age of reproduction of an individual for that specific "species". Changes require more than a single generation because mating naturally occurs between younger and older individuals. ie- survivors of bottlenecks will typically be of various generations and they'll continue to reproduce for a couple of generations.

"Species" is just a word because every member of a "species" is an individual and has a different (though similar) consciousness. Each has distinctive patterns of behavior which is based on its genes and knowledge.

So, you have no understanding of what the word "species" means. I didn't think so, but I just wanted you to verify it.

 

[ecco]

Yep, many people say....God is truth. The problem is that all these people believe in different versions of God or even different gods. So, they can't all be truth, can they?

many facets to a precious stone

No. Not many facets of a precious stone. Many different cubic zirconias with many different people all proclaiming: "Mine is the real diamond!"

seems you have a gem of your own
and you think no one else has a better one

We were discussing people's beliefs in gods. So, no I don't have a gem of my own. I'm not one of those people who believe that "my god is better than your god". I'm just one of many people who would point out that that cannot be true.

 

[ecco]

What scientists discovered, in some cases, was already known.

Example?

What scientists think is right, is not necessarily right, in many cases.

What scientists think is right is usually more right than what scientists/lay people thought was right 100 years ago.

In fact, imagine being incredibly accurate, only to realize you were incredibly wrong.

That's the joy of science. It's also the joy of religious people. Many religious scholars believed the Exodus actually happened - oops.

 

[ecco]

As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR.

That's a rather bold statement coming from someone who cannot define "species".

Actually, it's a rather silly statement coming from someone who cannot define "species".

 

[nPeace]

You do with it what you want off course.
It just seems to me that if you are going to make arguments concerning the idea of scientific consensus, it would be wise to inform you properly on what that is exactly - something you clearly didn't do.

Upto you off course.... If you don't mind making arguments based on strawmen, honest misunderstandings and ignorance, that is off course your choice.



Then why are you complaining that people are giving you a diverse set of examples of such evidence?
If there is that much evidence, wouldn't you in fact expect multiple people to mention more then just one piece of evidence?

What are you complaining about the, really?


Is it?

Tell me... what is speculative about a chromosome with telomeres in the middle (instead of at the ends) and when that chromosome is split at the fusion site (= the middle telomeres), we get exact matches with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing"?

Sorry, but no.... established theories like evolution aren't based on "speculation and assumptions". They are based on facts and verifiable and testable evidence, matching the predictions of the theory.

Just like all other scientific theories......

Since you are the expert here, why don't you tell me a bit more about Chromosome 2.... Like what functions these 2 pairs of Chromosome carried out before they fused, and whether any functions were hindered / obstructed / otherwise.

Speaking of expert, you are the first person I ever heard with the Chromosome 2 argument (Hmm.. I wonder why...), and your words do sound expertly formulated.
I don't just take words as Gospel though, especially on debate forums. They usually are mere claims that can be spouted at whim. So...
Where is your supporting evidence that "we get exact matches with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing""

I won't hold my breath.

No. The reason multiple people will bring up multiple different examples of evidence, is because there is a ginormous mountain of examples to choose from.

No matter how many times you repeat that, and how good it sounds to you, I know I am right, and I proved it.
You just confirmed it, and you can't deny what is written in the science journals.
The beauty about that, is that that information is just a few mouse clicks away.

It is the case. No reasonable scientist rejects evolution theory.
The only ones who reject evolution theory are fundamentalist creationists belonging to an organization that makes them sign a "statement of faith".

Opinion noted.

No, it doesn't.
Multiple independent lines of evidence all converge on the same answer.
Genetics, paleontology, comparative genetics, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, the fossil record, etc etc.

You can remove every fossil from existance and still all other lines of evidence would be MORE THEN ENOUGH to demonstrate evolution theory beyond any reasonable doubt.

Well thank you, at least, for acknowledging that getting rid of the fossil record is a wise choice for believers in evolution, since it's against the theory... every time we turn around.
So basically the evolution theory has no supporting evidence, when we look at every one of those you mentioned.

It is EXACTLY what you said in the OP, since you claimed that pointing to scientific consensus is engaging in an "argumentum ad populum" - which is a fallacy which literally refers to popular opinion / beliefs.

The argumentum ad populum, literally means "this is true because many people believe it". That's literally appealing to "popular opinion".


So, when you state that pointing out scientific consensus is engaging in the ad populum fallacy, you are LITERALLY stating that scientific consensus is no more or less then popular opinion.

So yes, it is exactly what you said.

Let's see... what exactly did I say...
I suggest you are either lying, or confused. Do you know which it is?
First you say, I implied what you said...
It's about you showing your ignorance by implying that "popular opinion" is somehow the same as "scientific consensus".
Now you say, it is exactly what I said.
When you make up you mind let me know.

I won't wait for you though.
Searching the OP....
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

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Appealing to authority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, consensus gentium,... it's all useless, and irrelevant in any debate.

Yup. You're lying... or confused.
Unless you are saying that consensus is just 'popular opinion'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you are the expert here, why don't you tell me a bit more about Chromosome 2.... Like what functions these 2 pairs of Chromosome carried out before they fused, and whether any functions were hindered / obstructed / otherwise.

Speaking of expert, you are the first person I ever heard with the Chromosome 2 argument (Hmm.. I wonder why...), and your words do sound expertly formulated.
I don't just take words as Gospel though, especially on debate forums. They usually are mere claims that can be spouted at whim. So...
Where is your supporting evidence that "we get exact matches with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing""

I won't hold my breath.


No matter how many times you repeat that, and how good it sounds to you, I know I am right, and I proved it.
You just confirmed it, and you can't deny what is written in the science journals.
The beauty about that, is that that information is just a few mouse clicks away.


Opinion noted.



Well thank you, at least, for acknowledging that getting rid of the fossil record is a wise choice for believers in evolution, since it's against the theory... every time we turn around.
So basically the evolution has no supporting evidence, when we look at every one of those you mentioned.


Let's see... what exactly did I say...
I suggest you are either lying, or confused. Do you know which it is?
First you say, I implied what you said...
It's about you showing your ignorance by implying that "popular opinion" is somehow the same as "scientific consensus".
Now you say, it is exactly what I said.
When you make up you mind let me know.

I won't wait for you though.
Searching the OP....
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

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Appealing to authority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, consensus gentium,... it's all useless, and irrelevant in any debate.

Yup. You're lying... or confused.
Unless you are saying that consensus is just 'popular opinion'.

You really should be ashamed of yourself for this post. Now perhaps you do not know what is and what is not evidence. Creationists are terribly afraid to understand that concept. You are more than bright enough to understand it, would you care to discuss it? You are running out of plausible deniability, right now it does appear that you are lying on purpose.

 

[nPeace]

You really should be ashamed of yourself for this post. Now perhaps you do not know what is and what is not evidence. Creationists are terribly afraid to understand that concept. You are more than bright enough to understand it, would you care to discuss it? You are running out of plausible deniability, right now it does appear that you are lying on purpose.

Here is another expertly formulated speech.
I'm giving the experts my full attention. Please... tell me...
Why? What's the reason I should be ashamed?

 

[Thief]

We were discussing people's beliefs in gods. So, no I don't have a gem of my own. I'm not one of those people who believe that "my god is better than your god". I'm just one of many people who would point out that that cannot be true.

my God is better than your god....because....

He is bigger, faster, stronger, most intelligent and greatly experienced

if your god has the same attributes....
it is the same God

 

[nPeace]

But again you failed to state clearly what you mean by 'truth', what test will tell us whether any statement about reality is true or not.

I did. Maybe not clear enough to you, but I stated the reason for that.
Bear in mind, we've been through this before. This is a repeat.
Let me take into consideration other factors. I'll go slowly.

I believe there is objective reality to the one(s) in the absolute position to know and determine it.
So objective reality is, but man knows very little about those realities.

Maybe you did not understand that.
I thought it was simple. Would you like to try again? If you still don't understand, i'll simplify it further.

For me, the reason I believe with 99.99% certainty that I have the truth, is based on many reasons, but one is mentioned here...
1 Timothy 4:7-10, 15, 16

In case you don't understand what the above is saying...
Please read the words that follow, in the post, again.

What tests can we carry out in order to know what is reality?
Try this one, and tell me what you come up with.
Does anyone love you? How would you know? Can you prove it? Do you consider love for others an objective reality or not?
Is it a reality that a person loves another? Can you demonstrate objectively that two people love each other?

We can proceed from here.

Are you actually proceeding here without clear ideas on the subject?

Don't know what you mean by that.

The demonstration is easy. Truth is not absolute, merely retrospective. Thus if you place yourself in, say, Babylon at the time of the captivity, and you ask the leading sages of the day whether the earth is flat, they'll reply, Yes, of course it is ─ use your eyes! So the statement 'The earth is flat' was true back then (and a flat earth, shaped either like a rectangle or a circle, is the only model used in the bible).

You actually did time travel?
Nope. Speculating? Is is okay if I speculate also, when giving an answer?

Or go back to 1887 when Michelson and Morley are about to conduct their experiment, and ask the leading physicists of the day, 'Does light propagate in the lumeniferous ether?' and they'd reply, Yes.

Or when you ask an Atheist and unbeliever, "Is there a God?" and they say, "Nope."
Nothing has changed.

Or take 2019. We walk through the physics department of our local university, and we say, 'Is the Higgs boson real?' and they say, 'Yes' ─ and they might add that we know it's real because in 2012 it satisfied the test used by scientists that the odds were less than a million to one that the LHC results on which the conclusion was based were instead due to chance. (That is, it wasn't true till 2012.)

Truth is the best opinion of the best informed people from time to time.

And when I say a statement is true, I mean it accurately corresponds with / reflects reality.

I don't understand the above two statements. They are making no sense to me.
Truth is the best opinion... of the best informed people from time to time.
Is reality also relative to what is the best opinion?

On the exact contrary, science is always a work in progress; or as Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified. Since science examines reality using empiricism and induction, nothing protects its conclusions from new information we may discover tomorrow ─ or never discover.

Then how can something that is wrong, be reality? Does reality come and go, according to hat man thinks he knows?

We're talking about the best informed opinions.
No, the map is not the territory, but the best opinion available to us from time to time is the standard for truth. We're not talking about 'mere' opinions, and there are no absolute statements, so what's the option?

Oh, I see. So your truth is opinions that are taken by a community, as the best.
So is it wrong for a person to believes another opinion to be truth, or reality?
What happens when it is found out that the person(s) who held to a different opinion, were right, and the community opinion was wrong... as has been so often the case?
What happens to your reality

I'm sorry blü 2, but this is one of the most things I have ever heard.

Do you say we can instead make absolute statements about reality? I don't. Science doesn't. If you do, give me an example of an absolute statement relevant to what we're talking about.
What argument did you present that I ignored? What question of yours did I ignore?

Please don't forget to provide the test you use to determine whether statements about reality are true or not.

Yes. We can definitely make absolute statements about reality, and if one can accept the crazy idea that reality is the best opinion, they might as well accept this one. Hebrews 3:4
We often, base reality on what we know, in reality. Is that not true?
However, there are other ways of determining reality. As I said, there are many.

Oh. You did not answer my questions here... in the first paragraph.

 

[Thief]

well......in the scheme of superlatives

my previous post stands

if you like your cartoon rebuttal.....
good luck standing before him

 

[nPeace]

Yes, of course. But that doens't mean we will suddenly discover that the Sun orbits the Earth.



I am certainly NOT talking about the views before the scientists came along. For the most part, those were just completely wrong. Folk ideas tend to be a bizarre mix of imagination, a few insights, and mythology.

I am talking about how scientific ideas are changed over time. So, we have an initial scientific thoery A and it gets changed to a new scientific theory B.

When this happens theory A gives a good approximation to what we observe for a certain range of phenomena. But, we have found a situation where A doesn't give an accurate description. The theory B is proposed and adopted because it explains everything that A got right and *also* explains what A got wrong. Furthermore, B typically even explains what A got right to a better approximation.



OK, and science does this in every area it studies.



Usually false.



Well, in those things where you were incredibly accurate, that accuracy won't change. If we have 5 decimal places of accuracy, then any new thoery will be expected to have at least 6 decimal places of accuracy. That is an improvement.

I see no need to argue right and wrong here.
The fact of the matter, is that some knowledge in the past before scientific discovery, was right. Some was wrong. Same as today.
The only difference today, is improved and advanced instruments for study.
Similar to when they used reed pens to write, but now use more modern pens. Or when brushes were stiff because of the material used, but now we have softer bristles.

Study has continued from the start of humanity, and it's an ongoing process, that will not end.