He isn't saying that at all.
We have extremely good evidence that there are people and that they are sometimes hungry and sometimes not.
Both are reasonable assumptions.
Religions, alien abductions and miracles from Sai Baba, even though attested by millions of Hindu in the 19th century, are not reasonable.
Does anyone actually know the real reasons some Christians don't accept evolution? Obviously it's because of some passages in scripture but which ones?
I'm not sure why they don't just say - I believe the bible and it says evolution is wrong so therefore that's my reason? Why the charade about "it's not proven by science yet blah blah..."
If they believe so much why not just say "this is my proof, words in scripture don't match with this scientific theory therefore science has it wrong"?
Seems you missed my point.
I know when I am hungry... always.
You on the other hand, must make an assumption... always.
That's a good question you asked. Do you know why I reject belief in evolution? Is it because of my religion belief?
The best you can do is assume... unless you ask me, and then you can make a validation.
I on the other hand, know... full well.
I think your post is full of guesswork - assumptions... but that's the best you can do, isn't it?
He isn't saying that at all.
We have extremely good evidence that there are people and that they are sometimes hungry and sometimes not.
Both are reasonable assumptions.
Religions, alien abductions and miracles from Sai Baba, even though attested by millions of Hindu in the 19th century, are not reasonable.
Does anyone actually know the real reasons some Christians don't accept evolution? Obviously it's because of some passages in scripture but which ones?
I'm not sure why they don't just say - I believe the bible and it says evolution is wrong so therefore that's my reason? Why the charade about "it's not proven by science yet blah blah..."
If they believe so much why not just say "this is my proof, words in scripture don't match with this scientific theory therefore science has it wrong"?
It seems to be a deification of scripture coupled with a deification of church doctrine. Once those are considered divine and infallible, no reason or evidence can penetrate.
“...I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. 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. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
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
Consensus Science and the Peer Review It is our responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that “[I would remind you to notice where the claim of] consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way” (M. Crichton).
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
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. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
When the Earth Moved When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience
One hundred years ago, a German scientist advanced the shocking idea that the continents were adrift, and the giants of geology ridiculed him. But nobody’s laughing now...
Well I am... laughing my head off.
Appealing to authority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, consensus gentium,... it's all useless, and irrelevant in any debate.
So why do persons continue with it?
Does it establish truth? No.
Are you saying this because you assume I have not looked at that information?
See this post.
We spoke on this before, though.
Yes. There is are questions. That proves nothing.
It's interesting that you guys keep bringing one thing after another, to say, that evolution has been proven.
If it's not ERVs, it's Ring Species, or Chromosome 2, or Horology, or Transitional fossils...
Can't you make up your mind?
If there is no question, for one thing, then you can stick to it. There is no need to hop from one to the other.
Evolution theory is not beyond question. That's why so many scientists question it.
Do you find anyone questioning that the sun burns hydrogen, or that we need oxygen to live?
Which scientists do?
Argumentum ad populum:
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it,
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
If you see the difference between the two, you will see how fallacious your argument is.
If you do not see the difference between the two I would suggest you try to stick to monosyllabic words and avoid Latin phrases at all costs.[/QUOTE]
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity."
I respect the scientists community and their findings in the field of physical and material domain.
While I firmly believe that humans got evolved in millions of years under processes set by G-d when He commanded the word "be" and with that everything got going as per His plans and set design.
Yet the above sentence that I have colored in magenta is not correct. If one person could commit mistakes, reason says, more persons could make more mistakes. Right, please?
I read the post you linked, and all I saw was you trying to duck and dodge. You either didn't understand what you were looking at, or you do, but have decided to tap-dance away from it as fast as possible anyway.
Given the way that the world is known to work, there is no other way that over a hundred thousand viral DNA insertions, caused by infections of a virus within a gamete (reproductive) cell to match between two being's DNA. They HAD TO HAVE been inherited. Either that... or you do the downright crazy thing and claim "magic" (which, in this case, is the same as claiming God did this). And because they had to have been inherited, it means that humans inherited them from those apes, who were our ancestors.
I don't know how you could understand all that is going on in these scientific findings and still claim that there is ambiguity. The only way this is possible is to claim "magic," and to be so hell-bent against accepting this truth that you will yourself to continue objecting.
I don't imagine that our friend @nPeace has even mentioned that he believes in magic. Where did one get that from? If he did not mention/claim it, it would be very unreasonable (and or unscientific) to accuse him of believing in magic. Right, please?
@paarsurrey I'm not sure if you are addressing me.
paarsurrey said:
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity."
I respect the scientists community and their findings in the field of physical and material domain.
While I firmly believe that humans got evolved in millions of years under processes set by G-d when He commanded the word "be" and with that everything got going as per His plans and set design.
Yet the above sentence that I have colored in magenta is not correct. If one person could commit mistakes, reason says, more persons could make more mistakes. Right, please?
What is being referred to when people say such things is that there is a consensus of evidence, rather than a consensus of opinion. There is a big difference between them.
I don't imagine that our friend @nPeace has even mentioned that he believes in magic. Where did one get that from? If he did not mention/claim it, it would be very unreasonable (and or unscientific) to accuse him of believing in magic. Right, please?
If the insertions of those viruses within the human genome that match up in over 100,000 places to ape DNA were done by God, then YOU TELL ME... what WORD do you want me to use for God's ability to simply do this without any precursor matter/beings/ancestry, etc.? What do you call God's power? If "magic" isn't a good enough word, then what? I'll call it whatever you want @paarsurrey. Let's call it "fibbledegibbet." God did his fibbledegibbet and poof! There was the markers of these viruses in human AND ape DNA.
If the insertions of those viruses within the human genome that match up in over 100,000 places to ape DNA were done by God, then YOU TELL ME... what WORD do you want me to use for God's ability to simply do this without any precursor matter/beings/ancestry, etc.? What do you call God's power? If "magic" isn't a good enough word, then what? I'll call it whatever you want @paarsurrey. Let's call it "fibbledegibbet." God did his fibbledegibbet and poof! There was the markers of these viruses in human AND ape DNA.
Yes - the one you see when you look in the mirror:
Genesis 2:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
First of all, the argumnetum ad populum is faulty because it is quite possible for many people to be wrong.
The argument from authority is NOT a logical fallacy. The fallacy is the argument from *false* authority. The question becomes whether the people you quoting are legitimate authorities or not. In the case of research scientists, they are, in fact, legitimate authorities, so it is NOT a fallacy to look to their opinions.
The reason research scientists are legitimate authorities is that they have actual access to the information and reasoning for their position. Actually looking at the real world gives that access.
In other words, your whole argument is that of a *false equivalence*.
Anytime someone says that we must regard a claim as true just because an authority has said it is true they are committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. It doesn't matter how well qualified they are that is irrelevant because truth is not determined by their qualifications. What they say must be validated by logic and the evidence before it can be regarded as true.
Logically, it is obvious that is is possible for someone who is qualified to say something that is false about a topic under their area of qualification.
Therefore, you can never claim that the opinion of an authority in a field constitutes proof of something being true.
It's not a fallacy to cite the opinions of an authority to support your claim if that claim is also backed up by it's own logic and evidence.
It, however, becomes a fallacy when you offer no logic or evidence to back up your claims and only expect the weight of someone's credentials to prove the truth of your claims.
The later is the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy.
By definition, an appeal to authority seeks to bypass the need to prove something is true logically by appealing to the qualifications of the one making the claim as good enough to establish it's truth.
What you also don't realize is that if your claims about appealing to authority being ok were true, then appealing to popularity of opinion among authorities would also be acceptable for the same reasons. But it's not. And it's not acceptable to appeal to a popularity of authorities for the same reason it's not acceptable to appeal to a single authority - neither of these factors logically determine whether or not something is true. Only logical arguments and evidence can objectively determine something to be true.
No amount of singular authority or quantity of authorities can logically ever prove something is true without using logical arguments and evidence to prove a claim is true.
Anytime someone says that we must regard a claim as true just because an authority has said it is true they are committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. It doesn't matter how well qualified they are that is irrelevant because truth is not determined by their qualifications. What they say must be validated by logic and the evidence before it can be regarded as true.
Logically, it is obvious that is is possible for someone who is qualified to say something that is false about a topic under their area of qualification.
Therefore, you can never claim that the opinion of an authority in a field constitutes proof of something being true.
It's not a fallacy to cite the opinions of an authority to support your claim if that claim is also backed up by it's own logic and evidence.
It, however, becomes a fallacy when you offer no logic or evidence to back up your claims and only expect the weight of someone's credentials to prove the truth of your claims.
The later is the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy.
By definition, an appeal to authority seeks to bypass the need to prove something is true logically by appealing to the qualifications of the one making the claim as good enough to establish it's truth.
What you also don't realize is that if your claims about appealing to authority being ok were true, then appealing to popularity of opinion among authorities would also be acceptable for the same reasons. But it's not. And it's not acceptable to appeal to a popularity of authorities for the same reason it's not acceptable to appeal to a single authority - neither of these factors logically determine whether or not something is true. Only logical arguments and evidence can objectively determine something to be true.
No amount of singular authority or quantity of authorities can logically ever prove something is true without using logical arguments and evidence to prove a claim is true.
Yes, authorities can be wrong. But they are much less likely to be wrong than the average person. Since absolute proof is impossible except in logic or math, the question becomes one of probabilities. And an authority in an area of study is much more likely to be right. At the very least, a consensus of authorities is going to be the best answer we have at the time.
“...I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. 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. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
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
Consensus Science and the Peer Review It is our responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that “[I would remind you to notice where the claim of] consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way” (M. Crichton).
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
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. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
When the Earth Moved When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience
One hundred years ago, a German scientist advanced the shocking idea that the continents were adrift, and the giants of geology ridiculed him. But nobody’s laughing now...
Well I am... laughing my head off.
Appealing to authority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, consensus gentium,... it's all useless, and irrelevant in any debate.
So why do persons continue with it?
Does it establish truth? No.
Scientific consensus it not about scientists agreeing with each other’s opinions.
Scientific consensus means that the research and experiments carried out regarding x y z, confirm the same results and thereby strengthen the likelihood that there’s something to the hypothesis presented.
I love the list of 5 sheeple that gave this a 'winner' - 3 documented plagiarists, 1 person infamous for doctoring quotes, one that thinks pop 'logic' wins every time.... glad they are so supportive of this cherry-picking, denialist nonsense!
