Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric (Electric Universe Theory)

[Clete]

Nope, it is accurate.

The fallacy of appeal to authority is to make a claim like: "Climate change is real because the king says it is", if you by that mean that in virtue of being king he makes the statement true.

Exactly

Appeal to scientific consensus is not the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Well, yes, of course it is. It is, however, a modified version of it. It is a mixture of an appeal to authority as well as an appeal to popularity. A consensus of scientists don't make things true by saying so any more than the king does. The only difference in the argument is the addition of multiple people. The argument is essentially, "X is true because a whole lot of these experts says it is." It's precisely the same form of argument and therefore the same fallacy.

Because it is an appeal to an instance who have authority relevant to the statement, they are authorities in the relevant field.

If this true, you'd have a point but it isn't.
There is no consensus. There is no way for you (or anyone else) to define what a consensus of scientist is and if there were you'd have no way of knowing to what degree the scientists were "authorities in the relevant field" or to even define what that meant.

Further, it is fundamentally unscientific to even discuss a "consensus of scientists" anyway. Science is about facts, not popular votes. Consensus belongs in the realm of politics, not science.

Ironically enough, those who tend to make the fallacy of appeals to authority by appealing to scientists are creationists: They constantly refer to some "doctor" or "PhD" (no one is more diligent when it comes to noting the titles of their sources), but they are doctors of irrelevant fields. Appealing to a NASA engineer on questions of evolutionary theory would be the fallacy of appeal to authority.

I don't recall this being a wide spread problem within Christian circles at all, although I suppose it may have been at one time. If anything, leading Christians creationist organizations are currently overly strict about who their sources are precisely because they've been burned one too many times by exactly this kind of accusation. The irony is that you almost certainly heard this argument made by someone else and simply believed it to be true on the authority of whomever you heard it from rather than making any attempt whatsoever to verify it.

Regardless, it isn't relevant to the point. I don't care who is making a claim, I don't care what field their in, I don't care how much they know, it is not their say so that turns their claim into a truth. You can ask me, the father of my children, a question about my daughters. My answer is not true by virtue of the fact that it's their father answering the question. My answer is either true or it is false, the fact that I'm their father makes me an expert but it doesn't make everything I say about my kids automatically true.

So, can one rightly appeal to an expert while making an argument? Of course! But the mistake is to take what MIGHT be valid testimony and take it as proof on the basis of the witness's "authority in the field".

Clete

 

[Selaphiel]

Well, yes, of course it is. It is, however, a modified version of it. It is a mixture of an appeal to authority as well as an appeal to popularity. A consensus of scientists don't make things true by saying so any more than the king does. The only difference in the argument is the addition of multiple people. The argument is essentially, "X is true because a whole lot of these experts says it is." It's precisely the same form of argument and therefore the same fallacy.

No, this is where you are wrong. It is not an appeal to popularity either, that is to claim that something is true in virtue of a majority opinion, regardless of qualification of that majority. Scientific consensus is in many cases not the popular opinion, it is the majority (and vast majority if we are speaking of a consensus) opinion of qualified experts.

Appeal to expert opinion is not a formal argument, but it is a healthy guideline to avoid crackpot beliefs. Evolutionary theory vs creationism is the case in point. You are a fool if you take the opinion of unqualified, who operate with with obvious non-scientific agendas and assumptions (as in the Bible is the literal word of God and thus I better make any evidence conform to that assumption)and are shown to make even the most elementary mistakes and misunderstandings of basic science. Appeal to scientific consensus when it comes to issues like evolutionary theory vs creationism is not a fallacy, it is a healthy guideline. We are talking about a scientific consensus of >99.9% among relevant experts. The same with climate change really, there it is a consensus of >97% of relevant experts.

Appeal to scientific majority opinion in more controversial issues, where the expert opinion is more clearly divided, would be more problematic.

So, can one rightly appeal to an expert while making an argument? Of course! But the mistake is to take what MIGHT be valid testimony and take it as proof on the basis of the witness's "authority in the field".

It is not about taking anything as proof. It is about what is the wise choice of someone who is not an expert, and that is to listen to the experts when the consensus is so great instead of listening to youtube crackpots who doesnt have a single relevant peer reviewed article to their name. It is the same as listening to a consensus of a 100 medical doctors when you are sick and they all agree that your symptoms are due to an influenza virus because they tested it vs listening to some crackpot witch doctor who claim western medicine is evil and that your symptoms are caused by a vindictive spirit. This trust in scientific consensus is wise due to the methodology of science itself with its peer review process. If you have a contrary view to the consensus, then you simply have to present your thesis with supporting data and be man enough to admit that you were mistaken if it was denied instead of then coming up with nonsense conspiracies like "all scientists are atheists, therefore they reject my creationist hypotheses".

 

[ClimateSanity]

No, this is where you are wrong. It is not an appeal to popularity either, that is to claim that something is true in virtue of a majority opinion, regardless of qualification of that majority. Scientific consensus is in many cases not the popular opinion, it is the majority (and vast majority if we are speaking of a consensus) opinion of qualified experts.

Appeal to expert opinion is not a formal argument, but it is a healthy guideline to avoid crackpot beliefs. Evolutionary theory vs creationism is the case in point. You are a fool if you take the opinion of unqualified, who operate with with obvious non-scientific agendas and assumptions (as in the Bible is the literal word of God and thus I better make any evidence conform to that assumption)and are shown to make even the most elementary mistakes and misunderstandings of basic science. Appeal to scientific consensus when it comes to issues like evolutionary theory vs creationism is not a fallacy, it is a healthy guideline. We are talking about a scientific consensus of >99.9% among relevant experts. The same with climate change really, there it is a consensus of >97% of relevant experts.

Appeal to scientific majority opinion in more controversial issues, where the expert opinion is more clearly divided, would be more problematic.



It is not about taking anything as proof. It is about what is the wise choice of someone who is not an expert, and that is to listen to the experts when the consensus is so great instead of listening to youtube crackpots who doesnt have a single relevant peer reviewed article to their name. It is the same as listening to a consensus of a 100 medical doctors when you are sick and they all agree that your symptoms are due to an influenza virus because they tested it vs listening to some crackpot witch doctor who claim western medicine is evil and that your symptoms are caused by a vindictive spirit. This trust in scientific consensus is wise due to the methodology of science itself with its peer review process. If you have a contrary view to the consensus, then you simply have to present your thesis with supporting data and be man enough to admit that you were mistaken if it was denied instead of then coming up with nonsense conspiracies like "all scientists are atheists, therefore they reject my creationist hypotheses".

There is not a 97% consensus among relative papers published that mankind is responsible for over half of global warming. The methodology used to arrive at the figure is faulty . As for 97% of relevant experts agreeing with the same thesis, it's still not true. You are going to have to establish what is a relative expert and from what I've read in pro global warming propaganda, they exclude the majority of people who have enough knowledge to make a qualified judgement.

 

[Right Divider]

You should know that fallacies are a fault in formal logic proofs. Proofs play little part in empirical science, which is merely looking for the theories that have the best fit to the data and for differences between predictions and observations.

A more productive discussion for science would be Bayes' Theorem, which deals with how to modify your probability estimates (beliefs, of you like) in the light of new evidence. References to actual authorities should modify your judgements on the relative merits of alternative propositions.

Consider this: a friends thinks a lump they have is cancer, but you persuade them to see a medical doctor who says that it is benign. Is it a logical fallacy to take that information into account? Should your friend ignore the advice of the doctor? Of course not. This is not a situation involving formal logical proofs, so fallacies play no part.

HILARIOUS AGAIN.

Your example is BOGUS.

Scientific FACT is not determined BY WHO SAYS it is, no matter WHO they are.

 

[Right Divider]

Nope, it is accurate.

The fallacy of appeal to authority is to make a claim like: "Climate change is real because the king says it is", if you by that mean that in virtue of being king he makes the statement true.

Appeal to scientific consensus is not the fallacy of appeal to authority. Because it is an appeal to an instance who have authority relevant to the statement, they are authorities in the relevant field. Ironically enough, those who tend to make the fallacy of appeals to authority by appealing to scientists are creationists: They constantly refer to some "doctor" or "PhD" (no one is more diligent when it comes to noting the titles of their sources), but they are doctors of irrelevant fields. Appealing to a NASA engineer on questions of evolutionary theory would be the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Scientific FACT is not determined BY WHO SAYS it is, no matter WHO they are.

 

[gcthomas]

There is not a 97% consensus among relative papers published that mankind is responsible for over half of global warming. The methodology used to arrive at the figure is faulty . As for 97% of relevant experts agreeing with the same thesis, it's still not true. You are going to have to establish what is a relative expert and from what I've read in pro global warming propaganda, they exclude the majority of people who have enough knowledge to make a qualified judgement.

1. There is no consensus
2. The evidence for this is hidden by a conspiracy
3. Therefore there there is no consensus.

I'm pretty certain there is a logical fallacy somewhere here …

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian notes that since NASA flights work as conventional theory predicts, without any kind of effect from EU, there's no reason to believe it exists.

Well, since things don't work exactly the same in both paradigms then this is a moot point.

If they don't, then the belief is finished. As noted NASA craft work precisely as conventional theory predicts.

Therefore electricity is not currently affecting the movement of object in the solar system.

Actually, it is. Particles in the Van Allen belts are affected by electromagnetic forces. So are compass needles. There is an electromagnetic force, it's just rather small compared to gravity on the level of planets and stars.

So it's worse for the EU belief than I suggested.

You are aware that there are things going on outside our solar system.

So far, gravity is the only detectable force with any significant effect on the motions of stars, galaxies, etc.

I failed to notice the request. Sorry about that. I wasn't trying to ignore you.

No problem. Let me know.

If the video differs from the published EU websites, I'd be happy to know how.

But unless you give me something of substance to go on, watching would be a waste of time.

 

[gcthomas]

HILARIOUS AGAIN.

Your example is BOGUS.

Scientific FACT is not determined BY WHO SAYS it is, no matter WHO they are.

Who mentioned FACTs?

I mentioned estimates of the confidence you can have in particular opinions being true. You are attacking a straw man here.

True facts™ with absolute certainty are very hard to come by, so the scientific methods works to continuously improve confidence estimates. And you can be more confident about a medical opinion from an MD than one from your shoe shiner. It really does make a difference 'who says it is', and I don't believe you live your life in the way you suggest you might, believing any old nutter for serious decisions.

 

[Right Divider]

Who mentioned FACTs?

I mentioned estimates of the confidence you can have in particular opinions being true. You are attacking a straw man here.

True facts™ with absolute certainty are very hard to come by, so the scientific methods works to continuously improve confidence estimates. And you can be more confident about a medical opinion from an MD than one from your shoe shiner. It really does make a difference 'who says it is', and I don't believe you live your life in the way you suggest you might, believing any old nutter for serious decisions.

Fact or not, they are still NOT determined by WHO claims them. No matter their credentials.

 

[gcthomas]

Fact or not, they are still NOT determined by WHO claims them. No matter their credentials.

Do you trust the judgement of those without any experience or authority as much as those with education and experience and good reputation? Really?

 

[Right Divider]

Do you trust the judgement of those without any experience or authority as much as those with education and experience and good reputation? Really?

I said no such thing. You're making a false dichotomy.

What is true is NOT determined by WHO says it.

THAT is what the fallacy of the appeal to authority is all about. Doesn't surprise me that you don't understand it.

 

[gcthomas]

I said no such thing. You're making a false dichotomy.

What is true is NOT determined by WHO says it.

THAT is what the fallacy of the appeal to authority is all about. Doesn't surprise me that you don't understand it.

As humans we don't have access to unmediated truth, so all we have are our own fallible senses and judgements. Someone has to DECIDE what they think the truth is, regardless of the reality of it. And we need to make the best fist of it by taking actions to reduce the risk of error. If that means trusting the experts more than the inexpert, then that is the best we can do.

Selaphel has put you right on the fallacies, and I trust him both as an expert in theology and philosophy, and because I can cross reference his statements with other experts. They agree that you are mistaken.

 

[Right Divider]

As humans we don't have access to unmediated truth, so all we have are our own fallible senses and judgements. Someone has to DECIDE what they think the truth is, regardless of the reality of it. And we need to make the best fist of it by taking actions to reduce the risk of error. If that means trusting the experts more than the inexpert, then that is the best we can do.

Selaphel has put you right on the fallacies, and I trust his both as an expert in theology and philosophy, and because I can cross reference his statements with other experts. They agree that you are mistaken.

No, he did not.

I can see that YOU think that YOU are that someone.

 

[Clete]

Scientific FACT is not determined BY WHO SAYS it is, no matter WHO they are.

Precisely.

Any suggestion otherwise is, whether these biased dingbats what to acknowledge it or not, is, in fact, an appeal to authority and/or an appeal to popularity - period.

 

[gcthomas]

No, he did not.

I can see that YOU think that YOU are that someone.

If I did propose myself as an expert in a specific area, of course if it was critical that I was correct odd hope you would cross reference with other experts.

 

[ClimateSanity]

1. There is no consensus
2. The evidence for this is hidden by a conspiracy
3. Therefore there there is no consensus.

I'm pretty certain there is a logical fallacy somewhere here …

Nothing is hid by a conspiracy. It's right in plain site for anyone with scientific training to see for themselves. The 97% consensus papers are fatally flawed. You believe just because a paper is published, it's beyond reproach?

 

[ClimateSanity]

1. There is no consensus
2. The evidence for this is hidden by a conspiracy
3. Therefore there there is no consensus.

I'm pretty certain there is a logical fallacy somewhere here …

Rather than the evidence for this is hidden by a conspiracy......it's just that there is simply no evidence for a consensus.....at least not 97%. Most scientists simply are not sure yet and have not made a decision yet.

 

[gcthomas]

Rather than the evidence for this is hidden by a conspiracy......it's just that there is simply no evidence for a consensus.....at least not 97%. Most scientists simply are not sure yet and have not made a decision yet.

And the data for your assertion of "most" are undecided comes from where, exactly?

 

[ClimateSanity]

The papers written about climate. Most of them do not take a firm stance one way or the other.

 

[gcthomas]

The papers written about climate. Most of them do not take a firm stance one way or the other.

Most climate papers are about the operation of the climate and are not addressing climate change per se, so that is what I would expect. Do you have figures for what proportion of the papers that make a judgement (yes, no, don't know) come down in favour of there being climate change?