Appeal to authority is NOT an appeal to majority/popularity, which definition is what I linked to. "Scientific consensus" is an appeal to popularity/majority.
You fail.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Creationists vs "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists"
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Appeal to authority is NOT an appeal to majority/popularity, which definition is what I linked to. "Scientific consensus" is an appeal to popularity/majority.
You fail.
The point still applies! You can't reasonably dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus, unless you have a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
No, UN, it doesn't still apply.
I CAN and DO reasonably dismiss the claims of a "scientific consensus" on the grounds that it is a logical fallacy called "Argument from popularity," or "argument from majority."
What the majority says may or may not be true. But it's not true because the majority says so. This is what you attempting to say by appealing to "scientific consensus."
Do you not have even the most basic grasp of logic and how it works, UN?
Well of course you can do whatever you want, but you don't have a reasonable leg to stand on and your arguments won't convince anyone except yourselves. But then, confirmation bias is all you're really looking for in the first place.
Not what I said, you ignoramus.
It must be blissful to be so willfully ignorant.
I CAN and DO reasonably and logically dismiss the claims of a "scientific consensus" on the grounds that it is a logical fallacy called "Argument from popularity," or "argument from majority."
I CAN and DO reasonably and logically dismiss the claims of a "scientific consensus" on the grounds that it is a logical fallacy called "Argument from popularity," or "argument from majority."
Your opinion is noted.
I CAN and DO reasonably and logically dismiss the claims of a "scientific consensus" on the grounds that it is a logical fallacy called "Argument from popularity," or "argument from majority."
Let's say you're sick. You get examined by a panel of doctors. They develop a consensus diagnosis, but a snake-oil salesman convinces you that the so-called experts are wrong and that to believe they are right is to believe an "argument from popularity" or "argument from majority."
That's what you're doing here.
No, it's not.
Again, because you seem to have not read my entire post #143:
What the majority says may or may not be true. But it is NOT true simply because the majority says so.
What I'm trying to get you to understand is that "scientific consensus" does not determine truth.
Evidence determines truth. Not consensus.
Let's flip the analogy:
You get examined by a panel of doctors. They develope a consensus diagnosis that you are sick, and then convince you that therefore you should believe what they say based on their consensus. The problem is that you haven't experienced any symptoms, and while some of the tests return positives, they convince you that those positives cannot be false positives because they say so, and therefore their conclusion that you are sick is correct.
And so you go on to believe them, and end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on tests, treatments, and drugs, all for a condition that you don't actually have.
That's you, UN.
You've been lied to, and worse, bought into the lie, that God did not create the universe in 6 days, and rested on the seventh, and then to justify your position, you resort to using logical fallacies to defend your decision to buy into what these scientists have said.
The solution is to not rely on the consensus, but to trust the evidence.
You are relying on the consensus.
I'm pointing to the evidence that tells you that God made the universe in six days, and you're rejecting it and crying, "Consensus, consensus!"
WAKE UP, man. Get a third party to examine you to confirm or deny the consensus. That's what I'm attempting to be, at least, for you!
A "third party" can't reasonably dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus, unless they have a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.
Right Divider
Body part
In this case... it's those in the "consensus diagnosis" that are the snake-oil salesmen.
Of course!
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
Last I checked, you're the one making an argument from popularity, which is a logical fallacy.
What the "experts claim" has nothing to do with the fact that you're using a logical fallacy to try to win the argument, which isn't going to work.
If you would like to discuss the claims themselves, I'd be more than happy to discuss them, as opposed to having to deal with your appeal to popularity.
To clarify:
I'm not disputing that the experts claim the earth and universe are old.
I'm not disputing that the majority of experts say so.
I'm not even disputing that they're experts in their fields!
AND I"m not even disputing that what they say is true!!!! (It isn't true, but that's besides my point here.)
What I'm disputing here is YOUR CLAIM that what they say is true BECAUSE of "scientific consensus," which is just another way of appealing to majority.
Appeal to majority, or, argumentum ad populum, is ALSO CALLED "consensus gentium" (latin: "agreement of the people") and "authority of the many."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Now, stop waffling and address the evidence I have presented, or leave the thread.
And yes, a "third party" CAN reasonably dismiss the claims of experts if the claim to truth is based on an argumentum ad populem, which is what a "scientific consensus" is, because it's a logical fallacy, and fallacious reasoning.
Right Divider
Body part
You don't have a "similar level of understanding" and just take what they say blindly.
You: "They're real smart... just believe them".
Yes, I did. And now, since you're not longer attempting to reasonably participate, and in MY thread, you are being kicked from the discussion.
I gave you a fair chance, four pages worth, and you repeatedly ignored the major points of my posts. You left out portions of my posts that addressed your arguments completely. And you constantly made logically fallacious arguments.
May we meet again in another thread, where hopefully you can properly argue your position without resorting to such tactics as you have used in this thread.
:mock: :loser:
Notice how all he wanted to do was argue over the definitions of words. Any time the discussion was turned toward the evidence, the best he could do was post a Wiki link.
Gone are the days when the Darwinists even tried to engage sensibly.
Notice how all he wanted to do was argue over the definitions of words. Any time the discussion was turned toward the evidence, the best he could do was post a Wiki link.
Gone are the days when the Darwinists even tried to engage sensibly.
No one dismisses such things per se. That isn't the point. The point is that its opinion, not science! I don't care how many opinions you collect, opinions do not become fact just because a bunch of people agree with it and science is about facts, not opinions.
OPINION IS NOT SCIENCE!!!
Last edited:
You're an intelligent person with an interest in science. I think it is not fitting of your abilities that you accuse others of argumentum ad populum when actually you are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation.
Scientific consensus is not appealing to the majority. It is a discussion by experts working in interrelated fields that seeks to take account of the sum total of evidence brought to the conversation by all participants. That could be via conferences or discussions via the literature, for example. A consensus could arise if a model is developed and none of the participants can provide evidence to disprove it. That doesn't mean the consensus is the last word on a question, it just means they all go back to work to learn more and try to find flaws in that consensus model, which is the day job of a scientist.
I would be interested to know how this same process has been applied to your views of what has happened in the past. Do they carry the robustness of scientific consensus?
Stuart
There is no such thing as a scientific consensus. It is a contradiction in terms. Science is the process of eliminating ideas because of evidence, reason or logic. Consensus has no part to play, regardless of how many experts are involved.
Right Divider
Body part
Such a cute story.... there are ALL kinds of problems with the "big bang" and YET many here present it as the only solution. They do so based on "consensus" and NOT on the scientific evidence. That's where the fallacy comes in.