Guest Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) Argument from Consensus fallacy. Truth is not determined by "vote". You clearly don't know what scientific consensus is. Its not determined by vote, but by the conclusion of the researchers working in a particular field. If all or most of the researchers studing a phenomenon are coming to the same or similar conclusions then consensus on that builds. Einstein's theory of relativity would never be accepted today if it weren't replicated and confirmed by other scientists. Same with Darwin and natural selection. Of course in your world, surface impressions are all that matters. Edited January 26, 2013 by Art1972 to remove mention of political subject... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest osskar Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 When Melba.....when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Indie thanks for reply, nice to hear, I plussed you for remembering...! Don't know Noory's background, but I am sure he can read, so it isn't invisible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) You clearly don't know what scientific consensus is. Its not determined by vote, but by the conclusion of the researchers working in a particular field. I know exactly what it means and I also know that adding the word "scientific" to "consensus" does not make argument from consensus any less of a fallacy. In fact, it makes it a compound fallacy of that and argument from authority. It doesn't matter if 1 person, 10 people, 10,000 people, or 10,000,000 people agree on something if that something is wrong. It doesn't matter if every man, woman, and child on the planet "agreed". Reality is not a matter of consensus, and if the whole of the population of Earth agreed that water was dry and the law of gravity was false then water would still be wet and they'd still fall if they jumped off a cliff. If all or most of the researchers studing a phenomenon are coming to the same or similar conclusions then consensus on that builds. Einstein's theory of relativity would never be accepted today if it weren't replicated and confirmed by other scientists. Same with Darwin and natural selection. And if they hadn't "accepted" it, would the universe cease to exist? No, because the truth of the theory predates and precedes the acceptance of the theory. Of course in your world, surface impressions are all that matters. No, in "my world" (aka Reality as opposed to the fantasy land known as Skepticworld) I don't fall for cheap logical fallacies and shallow debating tricks. Edited January 26, 2013 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Not all, but, many journals publish on a monthly basis around the first Friday of the month. This suggests that Friday Feb. 1, 2013 could be the big day. That is next Friday. If not then, I give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Extinct Consensuses: The world is flat. Earth is the center of the universe. Slavery is ok. Women belong in the kitchen. We're heading into a new ice age ('70s, just 40 years ago - some of the same climate guys involved today). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) I know exactly what it means and I also know that adding the word "scientific" to "consensus" does not make argument from consensus any less of a fallacy. In fact, it makes it a compound fallacy of that and argument from authority. It doesn't matter if 1 person, 10 people, 10,000 people, or 10,000,000 people agree on something if that something is wrong. It doesn't matter if every man, woman, and child on the planet "agreed". Reality is not a matter of consensus, and if the whole of the population of Earth agreed that water was dry and the law of gravity was false then water would still be wet and they'd still fall if they jumped off a cliff. You just proved that you still don't know what scientific consensus is. You also clearly don't understand the concept of replication. If Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't relicated by other researchers than chances are it won't be true. But it was. Same with the expanding universe, same with plate tectonics, same with evolution. And if they hadn't "accepted" it, would the universe cease to exist? No, because the truth of the theory predates and precedes the acceptance of the theory. But how do we know is a theory is "truth" if it hasn't been confirmed and replicated by mulitple researchers? It easy to use 20/20 hindsight and declare a theory truth after the fact. Extinct Consensuses: The world is flat. Earth is the center of the universe. Slavery is ok. Women belong in the kitchen. We're heading into a new ice age ('70s, just 40 years ago - some of the same climate guys involved today). Edited January 26, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Einstein's theory is just that.......a theory. The Hadron Collider proved that particles can travel faster than the speed of light! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) You just proved that you still don't know what scientific consensus is. You also clearly don't understand the concept of replication. If Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't relicated by other researchers than changes are it won't be true. But it was. Same with the expanding universe, same with plate tectonics, same with evolution. But how do we know is a theory is "truth" if it hasn't been confirmed and replicated by mulitple researchers? It easy to use 20/20 hindsight and declare a theory truth after the fact. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7225-the-ketchum-report/page__st__13140#entry690818 Your point? Just because you Believe something does not make it true, no matter how many people agree with you, particularly when there is contradicting evidence. You talk as if scentific consensus equates to truth, reality, or law. Most often scientific consensus equates to hedging so that the body of scientists in question can milk the current source of funding for all its worth. Edited January 27, 2013 by AaronD to remove reposted image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Extinct Consensuses: The world is flat. Earth is the center of the universe. Slavery is ok. Women belong in the kitchen. We're heading into a new ice age ('70s, just 40 years ago - some of the same climate guys involved today). Stones do not fall from the sky (meteorites) Maggots are spontaneously generated from rotting meat Sickness is caused by "humors" that are brought back into balance by the draining of blood "Celestial Spheres" It is impossible for man to create a machine capable of flight. Phlogiston theory "Miasma" theory of disease many more easily searchable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Your point? Just because you Believe something does not make it true, no matter how many people agree with you, particularly when there is contradicting evidence. Where have I said that? Stones do not fall from the sky (meteorites) Maggots are spontaneously generated from rotting meat Sickness is caused by "humors" that are brought back into balance by the draining of blood "Celestial Spheres" It is impossible for man to create a machine capable of flight. Phlogiston theory "Miasma" theory of disease many more easily searchable Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Depends on the hiney you're viewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 You just proved that you still don't know what scientific consensus is. You also clearly don't understand the concept of replication. If Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't relicated by other researchers than chances are it won't be true. But it was. Same with the expanding universe, same with plate tectonics, same with evolution. Nope, you just proved you don't want to admit it when you've been caught out. Bottom line: truth is not a matter of how many people accept it. Nor does rejection (even unanimous) of a truth render it false. But how do we know is a theory is "truth" if it hasn't been confirmed and replicated by mulitple researchers? It easy to use 20/20 hindsight and declare a theory truth after the fact Still ducking and dodging the point: truth does not become truth based on "acceptance" or "consensus". Nor can rejection render fact into fiction. If I were to (purely for example) put a functioning, loaded gun up to someone's head, take the safety off, and pull the trigger, all the chanting of "I don't believe/accept that the target will be hurt" in the universe will change the fact I'm about to turn the target's skull into a proverbial canoe. Where have I said that? Every time you (or any other Skeptic, for that matter) has said there is no evidence that BF exists, for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) Nope, you just proved you don't want to admit it when you've been caught out. Bottom line: truth is not a matter of how many people accept it. Nor does rejection (even unanimous) of a truth render it false. Still ducking and dodging the point: truth does not become truth based on "acceptance" or "consensus". Nor can rejection render fact into fiction. If I were to (purely for example) put a functioning, loaded gun up to someone's head, take the safety off, and pull the trigger, all the chanting of "I don't believe/accept that the target will be hurt" in the universe will change the fact I'm about to turn the target's skull into a proverbial canoe. I clearly explained to you the difference between scientific consensus and popular consensus but you keep acting like their the same thing. So... Edited January 26, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Einstein's theory is just that.......a theory. The Hadron Collider proved that particles can travel faster than the speed of light! Really, the "just a theory" argument? Further as an example of 1) how you are wrong and 2) how science corrects itself: http://newsfeed.time...oduct-of-error/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts