Argumentum ad populum

[Jose Fly]

That's all Wikipedia is saying. How does that help?

Sorry to bother you.

What's wrong with science that does not have to be agreed on?

Nothing.

Why does science need the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists?

I thought I explained that.

Without this consensus it would be impossible to move forward and make progress on some issues. If we never made an effort to take stock, see where we're all at, and memorialize our consensus, we'd just go in endless loops, constantly revisiting things we should have settled long ago.​

 

[nPeace]

Sorry to bother you.


Nothing.


I thought I explained that.

Without this consensus it would be impossible to move forward and make progress on some issues. If we never made an effort to take stock, see where we're all at, and memorialize our consensus, we'd just go in endless loops, constantly revisiting things we should have settled long ago.​

Thanks.
Please give me one scientific experiment that has been finally 'proven' based on having consensus.
I will mention one experiment that was finally 'proven' without, but rather against consensus.

 

[Jose Fly]

Please give me one scientific experiment that has been finally 'proven' based on having consensus.

Experiments aren't proven, they're conducted. The consensus usually involves the conclusions derived from experiments and/or data.

So for example, in the case of one species I worked with years ago we didn't know where they bred. Some of us had different ideas about where they bred, but no one really knew. But after doing some field monitoring and collecting the ensuing data we figured it out and now we all agree (consensus) on their breeding location.

The consensus was on the conclusion that we reached based on the data.

I will mention one experiment that was finally 'proven' without, but rather against consensus.

Ok.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

No need to try to educate me... again.
I did not and do not have a problem understanding what scientific consensus is.
I had a problem with the way you tried to define it, which was incorrect, but maybe you will not admit that, and I will not try to make you admit it.
As humans, the majority of us tend to have difficulty doing so at times.

I hope you keep in mind that during this conversation, you did not answer my questions.
I'm sure friends communicate, and answer questions, don't they. Perhaps you were trying to keep things the way you like them though.
Take care.

Edit:
@Hermit Philosopher on correction, the wiki definition was not defining the general term consensus. They are different.

Dear nPeace

I am actually sorry if you felt that my aim was to put you down by “educating” you. I do not want to put you down, but if you are going to use and criticise a certain term, you must first understand what people who use that term mean when they use it and, it was (apologies in advance) clear to me that you did not do so at the time of writing your OP.

Why is that important? I’ll give you an analogy:

Social media was new when my daughter was a teen and one day I saw that she had written something slightly odd on a photo she had shared. It read “NOTE: No copyright.”
Then, I noticed that all her peers would write that same thing on any photo they shared online (?). When I asked her why, she said it was so that no one copied or used their images without their permission.

The kids had read a little about copyright in school, but the misunderstanding of its real meaning and how it is used, was obviously still widely spread among her peers.

When I told my daughter how the term copyright was read and explained to her that “no copyright” meant precisely the opposite to what the kids had thought, she went on a rant about how it was nonsensical to name the term copyright if it meant one couldn’t copy without permission!

Although one could argue that some of what she was saying made sense, it does not matter; rational or not, the term copyright means what it means and when you use it, it makes no difference what you think of its meaning.

The same goes for the use of the term scientific consensus. It does not matter whether some feel that we ought to call the accumulation of confirmed results of a scientifically tested and retested hypothesis something else because it is confusing or non-sensical to call it consensus; that’s what is called regardless.

You mentioned that I had not replied to your questions to me. I looked through our correspondence but cannot see questions that fall outside of what I’ve written. Perhaps you could point them out to me…?


Humbly
Hermit

 

[nPeace]

Dear nPeace

I am actually sorry if you felt that my aim was to put you down by “educating” you. I do not want to put you down, but if you are going to use and criticise a certain term, you must first understand what people who use that term mean when they use it and, it was (apologies in advance) clear to me that you did not do so at the time of writing your OP.

It's okay Hermit. There is no reason to apologize for something you normally do... unless of course, you think it's bad, and want to change it.
We haven't just met, remember. This is not the first time I am drawing it to your attention.
If you feel a person is ignorant, and you want to educate them, and it is your good intention to do so, you will.
Why apologize for that.
How you do it, is another story.
However, apology accepted.

...and yes, it appears to me, you were trying to put me down. No need to apologize for that either... unless you really intent to stop doing it in the future.
This will be my last attempt to shortly try to explain what is meant by scientific consensus to you, but please bear in mind: at the end of the day, if you do not wish to understand something, I guarantee you, you won’t - and that is no fault of the scientific community; it is your own.

You don't consider that trying to put down. Then perhaps you are not aware of it, but it is.
We are both adults here, I believe, so we are good with that. We can take it... I hope.

Suppose we zero in on your phrase... if you are going to use and criticise a certain term, you must first understand what people who use that term mean when they use it...
Do you think that the OP is criticizing the term scientific consensus? Then, please point out exactly where that is in the OP. Thanks.

Do you think the person I quoted in the OP, needs to be educated about what scientific consensus is, because I quoted his words, and he said, unapologetically,
“...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

Some people think that Argumentum ad populum is a legitimate argument. is that your view?
I don't think you ever did say if you agree or disagree with him, but what exactly are you disagreeing with in the OP? I am not sure, as I get the impression you misunderstood, and zeroed in on something that's not there, based on your first statement... Scientific consensus it not about scientists agreeing with each other’s opinions.

It should be noted that nowhere in this thread, has anyone said that, and the Wiki article did not even suggest it.
Maybe that's the reason you felt I was ignorant, because you had the idea of consensus, as defined in the post where you offered the definition of consensus, when I asked for the definition of scientific consensus... based on your earlier definition, namely... Scientific consensus means that the research and experiments carried out regarding x y z, confirm the same results

I asked you to show me that in writing, because it is wrong. Even if you tried to explain it in your own words, it is not explained accurately... which I was pointing out to you.
The experiments carried out, may not confirm anything.
In those cases, the judgments and opinion on the results of the experiment may lead to acceptance of the conclusion, in the community.

An experiment that confirms something, is like for example, where a drop of acid is put on an object of some substance, and see those results repeated, being sure that the circumstances are not assumed, or "fitted" (for want of a better word) to produce said results.
Hence why I asked the questions I di, which you did not answer.

Why is that important? I’ll give you an analogy:

Social media was new when my daughter was a teen and one day I saw that she had written something slightly odd on a photo she had shared. It read “NOTE: No copyright.”
Then, I noticed that all her peers would write that same thing on any photo they shared online (?). When I asked her why, she said it was so that no one copied or used their images without their permission.

The kids had read a little about copyright in school, but the misunderstanding of its real meaning and how it is used, was obviously still widely spread among her peers.

When I told my daughter how the term copyright was read and explained to her that “no copyright” meant precisely the opposite to what the kids had thought, she went on a rant about how it was nonsensical to name the term copyright if it meant one couldn’t copy without permission!

Although one could argue that some of what she was saying made sense, it does not matter; rational or not, the term copyright means what it means and when you use it, it makes no difference what you think of its meaning.

The same goes for the use of the term scientific consensus. It does not matter whether some feel that we ought to call the accumulation of confirmed results of a scientifically tested and retested hypothesis something else because it is confusing or non-sensical to call it consensus; that’s what is called regardless.

You mentioned that I had not replied to your questions to me. I looked through our correspondence but cannot see questions that fall outside of what I’ve written. Perhaps you could point them out to me…?


Humbly
Hermit

Post #583. I asked... If something is confirmed, it means the evidence alone bears that out so plainly that everyone in the field of study sees that evidence for what it is.
Do you disagree? Then please, I want to hear your reasons.

Did you answer that?
I don't recall seeing an answer.

Thank you.

 

[nPeace]

Experiments aren't proven, they're conducted. The consensus usually involves the conclusions derived from experiments and/or data.

Yes, sorry, I made a mistake. That should really have been, Is there any experiment from which something has been finally 'proven' based on having consensus.

So for example, in the case of one species I worked with years ago we didn't know where they bred. Some of us had different ideas about where they bred, but no one really knew. But after doing some field monitoring and collecting the ensuing data we figured it out and now we all agree (consensus) on their breeding location.

The consensus was on the conclusion that we reached based on the data.

Thanks.
So the consensus is really irrelevant right? All that mattered was the results from the experiment, if they were conclusive, right?

Ok.

First up.
If you care for more, you will have to look here.
The experiment was what mattered.
Consensus in Science
Consensus has no value in a scientific argument; only experimental evidence matters. As stated already by Galileo Galilei, “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Physician, producer, and writer Michael Crichton formulated:

[T]he 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 are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.​

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains that scientists tend to experience what he calls “theory-induced blindness”: once a theory is accepted and used as a thinking tool, it is extraordinarily difficult to notice its flaws. Even when one comes upon an observation that does not fit the theory, one assumes that there must be an explanation that was somehow missed. Therefore, no consensus of experts can be an argument in scientific discussion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

@nPeace . Scientists are not a collective mind.
You can not make an argument with something called "Scientists"

The theory of evolution is likely to remain a work in progress for many years yet, and before everyone considers it not worth doing any more research on. Research on it will continue far into the future.
However, that men are related to other great apes is no longer in question. But the exact relationship still is.

Even E= MC2 is not the end of research on energy and matter, it was only a new starting point.
No science ever comes down to a single undisputed fact.
Science is always open ended and leads to further discoveries.

The argumentum ad populum Fallacy is a Non sequitur in relation to scientific study.
That Everything is open to question, is the foundation of science.

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace . Scientists are not a collective mind.
You can not make an argument with something called "Scientists"

The theory of evolution is likely to remain a work in progress for many years yet, and before everyone considers it not worth doing any more research on. Research on it will continue far into the future.
However, that men are related to other great apes is no longer in question. But the exact relationship still is.

Even E= MC2 is not the end of research on energy and matter, it was only a new starting point.
No science ever comes down to a single undisputed fact.
Science is always open ended and leads to further discoveries.

The argumentum ad populum Fallacy is a Non sequitur in relation to scientific study.
That Everything is open to question, is the foundation of science.

Your statements do not seem to harmonize.
You said, "Scientists are not a collective mind."
Then you said, "...that men are related to other great apes is no longer in question."

No longer in question to whom... the scientists who don't have the collective mind, or the scientists with the collective mind?

Can you help me reconcile that, because, according to what I read, 'that men are related to other great apes' is in question... among scientists.
Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case. Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time. Roughly three-quarters (76%) of Americans perceive that most biological scientists hold this view, according to the new study. Those in the general public who reject evolution are divided on whether there is a scientific consensus on the topic: 46% say most biological scientists think humans have evolved due to processes such as natural selection, and 52% say most biological scientists think humans have always existed in their present form.

In other words, there is a consensus (which is what this thread is discussing) on the idea that men are related to other great apes.
Do you agree that's the consensus?
Do you think consensus is important in science and among scientists?

 

[ecco]

I never said you were guilty of the 'fallacy of "moving the goalposts"'. There is no such thing as the 'fallacy of "moving the goalposts"'.

Yes, there is:
Moving the Goalposts

Well, live and learn. Let's see what it says...

Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument.​

You are quilty! I tried to stay on point about your use of the Wikipedia article being an example of you using argumentum ab auctoritate when you were complaining about others using it.


However, you never addressed that. Instead, you demanded I address other points. For a guy who is so concerned about fallacies of whatsoever, you sure are guilty of committing a bunch of them.

 

[ecco]

Merely asserting that anything I have said or done constitutes "dodging or twisting"
doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is true.

I did more than just assert...

You are required to quote any specific thing I have said, or explain any specific thing I have done, and give specific reasons why you think that constitutes "dodging or twisting", in order to prove why your claim would supposedly be true.

My initial comment was about you using argumentum ab auctoritate while chiding others for doing it. Here is your first attempted duck and dodge...

Because that would imply that wikipedia can't be refuted.

See, you went from argument from authority to focusing on refutation. Duck and Dodge.

You won't be able to do that because it never actually happened.

Yet, I just did. If you want more examples, I could provide them. But that would just be a waste of time. You used the word "never", so just one example is enough to prove you are incorrect.

Otherwise you concede the debate by failing to meet your logical burden of rejoinder.

Since I did meet your demanded burden of proof, it must be you who concedes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Logical fallacies, argument by assertion and ad hominem.

Merely asserting that anything I have said or done constitutes "dodging or twisting" doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is true.
You are required to quote any specific thing I have said, or explain any specific thing I have done, and give specific reasons why you think that constitutes "dodging or twisting", in order to prove why your claim would supposedly be true.

You won't be able to do that because it never actually happened.

Which also makes you guilty of the ad hominem fallacy. Because you are unable to offer a valid counter argument to my arguments, you can only resort to attacking character by accusations of trying to engage in behavior that involves dodging or twisting.



Yes, there is:
Moving the Goalposts

You also are still guilty of the fallacy of argument by assertion regardless of whether or not you tried to accuse me of a logical fallacy of "moving the goalposts" or if you meant something else by accusing me of "moving the goalposts".

Either way, the burden of proof is still on you to explain what exactly you mean by that and then to provide any evidence or logical arguments to demonstrate why anything I said or did would supposedly fall under what you claim happened.

You won't be able to demonstrate your accusations have any validity to them because the fact is I have done no such thing.




Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting that I have failed to comprehend your post doesn't prove it is true merely because you assert it is.
You need to provide any evidence or logical reasons why we should believe your claim is true that my post supposedly shows a lack of comprehension for what you said.

You will not be able to successfully do that because your claim isn't true.



Logical fallacies, argument by repetition and failure of the burden of rejoinder.

Given that I provided arguments against your claims, and you have provided no counter arguments to them, merely repeating your original claims constitutes the fallacy of argument by repetition.

Your refuted arguments don't stop being refuted just because you repeat them.

It is also a failure of the burden of rejoinder on your part. When someone presents an argument against your claim you have the burden of rejoinder to present a counter argument if you want to claim their conclusion is false. Otherwise you concede the debate by failing to meet your logical burden of rejoinder.

(S)he did, actually.

 

[ecco]

(S)he did, actually.

ecco's a he.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, sorry, I made a mistake. That should really have been, Is there any experiment from which something has been finally 'proven' based on having consensus.

The example I described was precisely that.

So the consensus is really irrelevant right? All that mattered was the results from the experiment, if they were conclusive, right?

Oh no, the consensus was very important. Had some of my colleagues not agreed on what the data showed, we likely would have had to collect more data and reexamine our methods. IOW, we wouldn't have moved on.

First up.
If you care for more, you will have to look here.
The experiment was what mattered.

You may be missing my point. Certainly the experiments and data are what matters, but it's not a black/white, all-or-none situation where if the data matters, that means consensus doesn't (or the reverse where if consensus matters, the data doesn't). They are both important.

With the spontaneous generation experiments, if no scientists agreed on the results then the issue wouldn't have been considered settled and progress would have been stalled.

Consensus in Science

Consensus has no value in a scientific argument; only experimental evidence matters. As stated already by Galileo Galilei, “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Physician, producer, and writer Michael Crichton formulated:

[T]he 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 are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.​

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains that scientists tend to experience what he calls “theory-induced blindness”: once a theory is accepted and used as a thinking tool, it is extraordinarily difficult to notice its flaws. Even when one comes upon an observation that does not fit the theory, one assumes that there must be an explanation that was somehow missed. Therefore, no consensus of experts can be an argument in scientific discussion.

Meh....the opinions of a writer and a psychologist, while interesting, certainly don't trump my real life experiences working in science. Without consensus progress would be almost impossible and we'd just go in circles.

Simply put, there's a good reason me and my colleagues seek consensus in our meetings. Any time we can reach unanimous agreement, we have effectively resolved an issue and can move on to the next one. That's vital in what we do.

 

[nPeace]

The example I described was precisely that.


Oh no, the consensus was very important. Had some of my colleagues not agreed on what the data showed, we likely would have had to collect more data and reexamine our methods. IOW, we wouldn't have moved on.


You may be missing my point. Certainly the experiments and data are what matters, but it's not a black/white, all-or-none situation where if the data matters, that means consensus doesn't (or the reverse where if consensus matters, the data doesn't). They are both important.

With the spontaneous generation experiments, if no scientists agreed on the results then the issue wouldn't have been considered settled and progress would have been stalled.


Meh....the opinions of a writer and a psychologist, while interesting, certainly don't trump my real life experiences working in science. Without consensus progress would be almost impossible and we'd just go in circles.

Simply put, there's a good reason me and my colleagues seek consensus in our meetings. Any time we can reach unanimous agreement, we have effectively resolved an issue and can move on to the next one. That's vital in what we do.

Okay, so I am trying to understand... in other words, you think that science cannot do without consensus, and an argumentum ad populum in valid?

 

[Jose Fly]

Okay, so I am trying to understand... in other words, you think that science cannot do without consensus, and an argumentum ad populum in valid?

Again, if you can try to avoid black/white thinking, that would help. I'm saying that consensus is important in science, and I've explained why (it allows us to resolve questions/issues and move forward). It's not an all-or-none scenario where either science can't do without it or it's useless.

Does that make sense?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Your statements do not seem to harmonize.
You said, "Scientists are not a collective mind."
Then you said, "...that men are related to other great apes is no longer in question."

No longer in question to whom... the scientists who don't have the collective mind, or the scientists with the collective mind?

Can you help me reconcile that, because, according to what I read, 'that men are related to other great apes' is in question... among scientists.
Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case. Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time. Roughly three-quarters (76%) of Americans perceive that most biological scientists hold this view, according to the new study. Those in the general public who reject evolution are divided on whether there is a scientific consensus on the topic: 46% say most biological scientists think humans have evolved due to processes such as natural selection, and 52% say most biological scientists think humans have always existed in their present form.

In other words, there is a consensus (which is what this thread is discussing) on the idea that men are related to other great apes.
Do you agree that's the consensus?
Do you think consensus is important in science and among scientists?

There is no doubt that a majority of scientists and the general population of the world would agree with the general principles of evolution. And that includes Man.
However a consensus assumes that the people have at least discussed the matter with each other, to come to this consensus.

As it is, very few of them will have done so. But come to that conclusion for them selves during their studies and education.
However it would be difficult to find many that do not agree with evolution. Such as do will probably do so on religious grounds, with no reference to science.

Consensus is not a scientific tool.

 

[nPeace]

Again, if you can try to avoid black/white thinking, that would help. I'm saying that consensus is important in science, and I've explained why (it allows us to resolve questions/issues and move forward). It's not an all-or-none scenario where either science can't do without it or it's useless.

Does that make sense?

No. I'm afraid not. It's either science can do without consensus, or it can't. It's as simple as that. It's not rocket science.
Are you saying that in some case it can, and in some cases it can't?

 

[Jose Fly]

No. I'm afraid not. It's either science can do without consensus, or it can't. It's as simple as that. It's not rocket science.
Are you saying that in some case it can, and in some cases it can't?

Yes. If I'm conducting an experiment in a lab, I can generally do that without any sort of concerns about consensus. I'll design my protocols, outline my null hypothesis, and conduct the experiment without a single thought about consensus.

But when I have my results and present them at a meeting of a team of my colleagues, reaching consensus about what the results are, what they mean, and what to do next is vital. I've explained why that is in my previous posts.

So again, it's not black/white, all-or-none. It ranges in importance from "not at all" to "essential" depending on the circumstances.

 

[nPeace]

Again, if you can try to avoid black/white thinking, that would help. I'm saying that consensus is important in science, and I've explained why (it allows us to resolve questions/issues and move forward). It's not an all-or-none scenario where either science can't do without it or it's useless.

Does that make sense?

So I'll take your view as, science and consensus go hand in hand. If I took it wrong, then hopefully you will clarify,

The other thing I asked, and want to know, you didn't answer.
Do you think that argumentum ad populum is valid?
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so"
Other names for the fallacy include common belief fallacy or appeal to (common) belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the masses, appeal to popularity, argument from consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, consensus gentium (Latin for "agreement of the people"), democratic fallacy, mob appeal, and truth by association.

 

[nPeace]

Yes. If I'm conducting an experiment in a lab, I can generally do that without any sort of concerns about consensus. I'll design my protocols, outline my null hypothesis, and conduct the experiment without a single thought about consensus.

But when I have my results and present them at a meeting of a team of my colleagues, reaching consensus about what the results are, what they mean, and what to do next is vital. I've explained why that is in my previous posts.

So again, it's not black/white, all-or-none. It ranges in importance from "not at all" to "essential" depending on the circumstances.

Yes. If I'm conducting an experiment in a lab, I can generally do that without any sort of concerns about consensus. I'll design my protocols, outline my null hypothesis, and conduct the experiment without a single thought about consensus.

But when I have my results and present them at a meeting of a team of my colleagues, reaching consensus about what the results are, what they mean, and what to do next is vital. I've explained why that is in my previous posts.

So again, it's not black/white, all-or-none. It ranges in importance from "not at all" to "essential" depending on the circumstances.

So my most recent post is correct? It's a hand in hand, or hand in glove situation? Just want to be clear.