Argumentum ad populum

[QuestioningMind]

I have brothers and friends who are scientists.
How did you arrive at that notion?
Do you disagree with Michael Crichton? He did science. I quoted him, and I do agree with him.

Do your brothers and friends who are legitimate scientists claim that evolution scientists don't use the same scientific method as they do? If so, what type of science do they practice and where did they get their degrees?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not only is there a scientific consensus that the ToE is valid, but the ToE has more verifiable evidence to back it up than virtually any other scientific theory ever proposed. If you agree that there is a scientific consensus that the Earth orbits around the Earth then surely you have no problem accepting that there is a scientific consensus that the ToE is valid.

And that endless evidence is why creationists cannot afford to understand the concept of scientific evidence. They seem to sense that the concept is the end of their arguments.

 

[Katzpur]

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

Actually, no I haven't, but I still just don't understand why this is. I just want to be able to get my head around the nonsense.

 

[Katzpur]

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?

My guess is that what some people would do in this event would be to look to religion for the answer. Not a great choice, IMO. Why anyone would not rely on the expertise of a consensus of experts in any given field to provide them with valid information is beyond me.

 

[Katzpur]

I have brothers and friends who are scientists.
How did you arrive at that notion?

It wasn't hard. I just kind of picked up on it from your OP. When someone asks what a scientific consensus has to do with anything, it pretty clearly makes the point.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

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

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

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

I must confess to a certain amount of confusion as to what point you are actually trying to make. Could you try stating it in your own words, and leave Michael Crichton to his writing?

 

[nPeace]

It wasn't hard. I just kind of picked up on it from your OP. When someone asks what a scientific consensus has to do with anything, it pretty clearly makes the point.

If you are happy with your interpretation... what more can I say.
It's wrong... but if it makes you happy.... Don't worry. Be happy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

There is, of course, always the slight possibility that the lone doctor is on to something new. If he has something he can demonstrate about his tests and results on medicine Y, it might not be inadvisable to at least look. Breakthroughs do happen, though they are very rare. And they become breakthroughs because if they can be shown to work, those other 100,000,000 doctors will also look at the tests and results, and quickly get on board.

 

[nPeace]

I must confess to a certain amount of confusion as to what point you are actually trying to make. Could you try stating it in your own words, and leave Michael Crichton to his writing?

How many words do you want? The OP has too little?

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually, no I haven't, but I still just don't understand why this is. I just want to be able to get my head around the nonsense.

Good luck. In my experience, JWs (especially @nPeace ) are extremely reluctant to discuss or even consider the possibility that their religious beliefs have any sort of influence at all on their views of science.

 

[nPeace]

Do your brothers and friends who are legitimate scientists claim that evolution scientists don't use the same scientific method as they do? If so, what type of science do they practice and where did they get their degrees?

What is this? Where are you going? Are you insinuating that only real scientists believe what you do?
I am not seeing the relevance of you questions.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

On this point, by the way, I think Crichton is both right and wrong, but mostly wrong.

He is right that there is no such thing as "consensus science." But the problem is, nobody here said there was. We have been talking about "scientific consensus," which is quite a different thing: that is all about a lot of people actually "doing the science," (that's the "reproducible results" part) and agreeing that the science was correct, as stated.

This happens a lot. When Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light, lots of scientists rushed to set up experiments that could verify that claim. And verify it they did. All separately, but they agreed in the end. That's "scientific consensus."

 

[nPeace]

Not only is there a scientific consensus that the ToE is valid, but the ToE has more verifiable evidence to back it up than virtually any other scientific theory ever proposed. If you agree that there is a scientific consensus that the Earth orbits around the Earth then surely you have no problem accepting that there is a scientific consensus that the ToE is valid.

Funny how this thread seem to have warped and wobble off its axis.
What's the OP about again?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How many words do you want? The OP has too little?

Maybe what I'd really like to know is why you would disrespect something that many people agree on, only to fall back on your own beliefs, which many people disagree on -- and why you think one approach more likely to provide "truth" than the other? After all, what's religion but the consensus of a bunch of theologians? And different bunches of theologians, by the way, always end up with different religions. Science doesn't do that very often.

 

[nPeace]

On this point, by the way, I think Crichton is both right and wrong, but mostly wrong.

He is right that there is no such thing as "consensus science." But the problem is, nobody here said there was. We have been talking about "scientific consensus," which is quite a different thing: that is all about a lot of people actually "doing the science," (that's the "reproducible results" part) and agreeing that the science was correct, as stated.

This happens a lot. When Einstein predicted that gravity could bend light, lots of scientists rushed to set up experiments that could verify that claim. And verify it they did. All separately, but they agreed in the end. That's "scientific consensus."

I know that people have a way of grabbing a few lines from an entire page, or pages, or script, and using those words in a way that supports their arguments.
I think that is very bad.. for the person, and listeners.
Would you like the entire speech?
Here.

Weird. I am sure I put most of it in the OP. Did you look at the Spoiler? I know some don't like to read much. I hope that's not the case with you.

 

[nPeace]

Maybe what I'd really like to know is why you would disrespect something that many people agree on, only to fall back on your own beliefs, which many people disagree on -- and why you think one approach more likely to provide "truth" than the other? After all, what's religion but the consensus of a bunch of theologians? And different bunches of theologians, by the way, always end up with different religions. Science doesn't do that very often.

Okay, why don't you tell me what the point of the OP is.
Something seems wrong here.

 

[nPeace]

That statement is just a shortcut instead of having to post research from thousands of individual scientists which will be ignored yet again. It is an invitation to go out and read what these scientists have to say. Once you have bothered to do the homework, you can come back and counter any of the tens of thousands of research papers in numerous scientific disciplines if you wish.

It's just that the posters understand that
1. the evidence is readily available
2, It has been presented numerous times to numerous evolution deniers
3. It is too much material to be posted on a blog
4. It will most likely be ignored.
5. It is folly to think that a blog poster can overturn over 200 years of accumulated scientific evidence and prove the overwhelming majority of scientists in numerous fields of research to be wrong.

But you go ahead......

So basically... fallacies are okay?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I know that people have a way of grabbing a few lines from an entire page, or pages, or script, and using those words in a way that supports their arguments.
I think that is very bad.. for the person, and listeners.
Would you like the entire speech?
Here.

Weird. I am sure I put most of it in the OP. Did you look at the Spoiler? I know some don't like to read much. I hope that's not the case with you.

I know the speech, but you apparently didn't understand what I said. While Crichton is "technically correct," that there is no such thing as "consensus science," nobody here is claiming that there is. What we are saying is that a lot of independent researchers have looked at the "reproducible results" and agreed. That is a consensus, but with a different meaning than the one Crichton is talking about.

Consider this example, from the speech: "In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century."

The "consensus" of the early deniers was not based at all on the work that Semmelweiss had done, and therefore it was invalid and had nothing whatever to say about the science behind his sanitary techniques (and the measured reductions in puerperal fever that he recorded). And what was the reason for the agreement at the start of the twentieth century? They repeated the tests, measured the results, and realized he was right.

 

[nPeace]

I was addressing the post that I quoted where you note that people criticize having the argument by authority being the primary source for a position.

Exact paragraph and line(s) please.

I am pointing out that is NOT the case for scientific claims.

And in the case of claims by research scientists, the argument from authority is not fallacious.


Look at the post of yours that I quoted.

Do you mind providing a link. I think I am lost.