Argumentum ad populum

[Jose Fly]

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

That's correct.

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.

No. "X is true because everyone agrees it's true" is not a valid argument in a debate. However, in reality many people accept certain things because all the experts agree on it, and that's reasonable. Not everyone has the time or expertise to research everything themselves and form their own independent opinions. A lot of folks just take things as true because that's what the experts say is true. Also, expertise is why courts rely on expert witnesses to testify about certain subjects (e.g. genetics) rather than just grabbing random people off the street.

So again, there's a nuance here. Saying in a debate "X is true because everyone agrees it's true" is not a valid form of debate. But that doesn't mean expertise and consensus aren't important or useful in other circumstances (e.g. court cases).

 

[Viker]

How oft do people hear a response like...
There is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution.

There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus

Peer review. They even use it in theology/religious studies.

 

[Rise]

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.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You have given no logical reasons why your claim would be true that I supposedly met the conditions of the description you quoted.
Merely proclaiming it is so doesn't make it so just because you assert it is.

You also seem to to be confusing the fallacy of moving the goalposts with the fallacy of changing the topic ( which would be either irrelevant conclusion or red herring).
But you don't have any evidence or arguments to claim I did that either.

However, you never addressed that.

Addressed what exactly? It's not clear from the context of your post what you could be referring to.

Instead, you demanded I address other points.

There's several critical errors in your statement.

1. What points exactly? You provide no context to what you are referring to specifically.

2. You have not demonstrated that any of the things I argued were not relevant to the issue being argued. And if my arguments were, in fact, relevant to the issue being debate, then you have no basis for asserting that I was wrong or in error in any way to make the arguments I did.

For a guy who is so concerned about fallacies of whatsoever, you sure are guilty of committing a bunch of them.

You have not been able to give any evidence or logical arguments yet to establish your claim could be true that I have supposedly committed any fallacy here.

Merely asserting that I have doesn't make it so just because you assert it

You need to be able to prove it with evidence and reasons.

But you can't provide that if it never happened. Because it didn't.

I did more than just assert...

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting that you did not committ the fallacy of assertion doesn't make it so just because you assert it is.

Considering that I gave reasons why you committed the fallacy of assertion, in order to refute my counter argument you need reasons and evidence to demonstrate why you did not merely assert something but also provided valid logical reasons and evidence to support your claim.

If you cannot do that then you cannot claim what I said is wrong.

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

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

You are commiting the logical fallacy of non sequitur based on also committing the logical fallacy of a strawman.

It is a nonsequitur because your conclusion doesn't follow logically from your premises. Quoting a statement I made about wikipedia being something that could be refuted does not prove that I never made other arguments which proved that you were wrong for accusing me of committing either a fallacy of appeal to authority. There are ot of false assumptions embedded in your claim: Such as assuming that was the only thing I tried to argue or assuming that was the central point of my argument. Both of which are false.

Which is why you are also committing the strawman fallacy by misrepresenting what my conclusion was and what I argued to reach that conclusion.

My argument was never at any point in my post that I did not commit a fallacious appeal to authority merely on the basis that wikipedia is a refutable source. That is a complete mischaracterization of everything I argued and a fabrication that has no basis.

I will direct you attention back to my original response in which I gave you a 1,200 word argument from point to point outlining in great detail why logically and factually you could not claim my reference to wikipedia as evidence could be called a fallacious appeal to authority.

Let's go back to that and see what I actually said my argument and conclusion were (which you have still not attempted to address or refute):

I said I was making an valid argument for the definition of a concept from common use and merely using a website as evidence of it's common use. Which is not the definition of an appeal to authority.

You have not pulled out a single argument from there and shown any error with my logical, evidence, or premises, which would give credence to your claim that my conclusion could be false.

Here is the post in question that contains what I actually argued, and not your fabricated strawman:

I can sum up why you are wrong succinctly like this:
I am making an argument from common use and using wikipedia as merely one piece of evidence for common use.
I am not making an argument from authority and appealing to wikipedia as the authority.

There's a very clear distinction you're not recognizing there.

I am saying that common use of a word is the way in which the definition of words is determined. Wikipedia just becomes one piece of evidence out of many potential pieces of evidence that demonstrate we have reason to believe this represents the common use and understanding of that word. I could just as easily cite any other website that would give a similar answer and my argument is exactly the same. Which disproves your claim that you think I am making wikipedia some kind of authority on the matter.

Citing wikipedia's definition would only become an appeal to authority in this case if I tried to claim that wikipedia's definition must be regarded as the right one just because it's wikipedia. But I don't make that argument nor do I need to in order to prove my conclusion is true about the definition of appeal to authority.

Therefore, if you want to dispute my conclusion about what the common use and meaning of a term is, you are capable of trying to providing counter evidence such as other websites that say something different.

Likewise, I could respond by citing even more websites that agree with wikipedia's definition to establish that my definition has more common acceptance than yours.

So you see there is nothing special about wikipedia to my argument. I am not appealing to them as the final authority on the matter that settles the debate just because wikipedia said it.


You don't think definitions are defined by common use and meaning? I can logically show otherwise:

First off: You can't accuse me of committing a fallacy of appeal to authority unless you can first establish what a fallacy of appeal to authority is.

So first need to establish what the definition is.

How are you going to do that?

Well, how do you establish the definition of any word or concept?
You look at how it is commonly used.

Why do we do that? Because that's the only way any definition for anything is determined: Common agreement amongst the users of a language about what a term means.
There is no other way by which definitions are determined or can be determined.
Because commonly agreed upon use is a required feature of something before it can by definition be a word in a language.
Otherwise it ceases to be language because by definition language must enable the communication of a concept from one person to another by representing a concept with an abstract symbol/sound/etc.

I am going to preempt what you will try to argue here. You may try to argue that this sounds like an appeal to popularity.
But that is a misapplication and fallacious use of the concept. I will explain why:

We can agree that it is wrong to assert it is true that the earth is flat just because the majority of people believe it is. That would be the definition of an appeal to popularity.

But what if I asked you to prove what the majority of people's favorite color is?

You cannot, by definition, establish the truth of this claim without taking a poll of people to determine what the popularity of the colors are.

Are you making an appeal to popularity in this case? No, of course not, because the very question involves asking a question that concerns the issue of what is popular.

It would, therefore, be logically contradictory to claim we can't establish what the popularity of something is because citing what the popularity of something is a fallacious act.

In light of that, how then do we separate the difference between the two scenarios? It's simple.

The former example involves appealing to popularity when popularity is not actually relevant to the issue in question. That is what makes it fallacious - irrelevance. Because the features of the earth can only be established using observation and math, and the logic applied to that. People's opinions about the shape of the earth are not directly relevant to the process of determining what the shape of the earth actually is.

That is not the case with the later example. In fact, not only can we say that finding the popularity of a color is relevant to the issue of establishing which color is most popular but we can say it is vitally necessary to answer the question - because there is, in fact, no other way the answer to the question could be established other than to do that. So it is then logically impossible to even try to accuse the question of being irrelevant to the issue.

What does that have to do with finding the definitions of words in a language you ask?
It is the same principle of necessity. Because language, by definition, only works based on what the collectively agreed upon meanings of words are. If there is no agreement then it's not language because it can't be used to communicate - which is the definition of what makes it a language.

Therefore, the only way you can answer the question of what a definition of a word is is by surveying or studying the users of a language to ascertain what a given word means to them.

So that process cannot be called a fallacy of appeal to popularity because it is not only relevant to the question being asked but it's actually intrinsically necessary to do in order to answer the question of what the definition of a word is. So you could never be accused of appealing to an irrelevant fact by engaging in that process of trying to survey what people think the definition of a word is in order to figure out what the common agreed upon definition must be - because that is by definition the only way you could answer the question of what the meaning of a word is.

Having established that, how would one logically go about gathering evidence of what the common meaning of a word is?

There may be many ways, but one easy way would be by surveying a collection of website articles, dictionaries, and encyclopedias online to see if they all agree on what the definition of the word is.

If they are all in agreement then that is conclusive evidence in favor of that being the commonly used definition of that word. And if there is no evidence to the contrary then we have no reason to believe the contrary is true.

Logically, if there were significant disagreement out there about what the proper definition of a term is then we would expect to see that reflected in the literature people generate about it's definition.
If we don't see evidence of that then we have no reason to conclude the people collectively do have any significant level of disagreement about what a word is suppose to mean.

 

[Rise]

(S)he did, actually.

Logically fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting that they did so does not make it true just because you assert it is so.

You are not able to provide any logical reasons or evidence to support your assertion and therefore lay claim to your assertion being true.

 

[Rise]

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

I said "burden of rejoinder" - not "burden of proof".
You obviously don't know what the former is.

I will explain it for you:
Burden of rejoinder means that if I offer an argument, and you want to dispute it, then the burden of rejoinder is on you to offer counter arguments about why you think you can claim my conclusion is false.

If you are unable to do that then, by definition, you lose the debate; because you couldn't validly refute the arguments in support of my conclusion.

And if you are unwilling to do that then you tacitly concede the debate because you are unwilling to meet the basic requirements of having a debate.

So, I already quoted for you above my 1200+ word argument proving why referencing wikipedia as evidence for common use of a word, in order to establish definition, cannot qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority.

You haven't even tried to address the argument I made, which is best summed up as concluding:
I was making an argument from common use, and using wikipedia as evidence of common use, which is not an appeal to authority by definition.

And then I give 1200 words to establish with logical arguments and evidence why my conclusion is true.

If you are unwilling to deal with the actual conclusion I argued ( as opposed to strawmaning it), and unwilling to refute any of the arguments or evidence I gave in support of that conclusion, then you concede the debate by being unwilling to meet your burden of rejoinder

 

[nPeace]

That's correct.


No. "X is true because everyone agrees it's true" is not a valid argument in a debate. However, in reality many people accept certain things because all the experts agree on it, and that's reasonable. Not everyone has the time or expertise to research everything themselves and form their own independent opinions. A lot of folks just take things as true because that's what the experts say is true. Also, expertise is why courts rely on expert witnesses to testify about certain subjects (e.g. genetics) rather than just grabbing random people off the street.

So again, there's a nuance here. Saying in a debate "X is true because everyone agrees it's true" is not a valid form of debate. But that doesn't mean expertise and consensus aren't important or useful in other circumstances (e.g. court cases).

Thank you.
Okay, so you form your conclusion / opinion on your interpretation of the data.
You present your findings for peer review.
Some agree. Some don't.

I hope that's correct so far. Any correction necessary, please feel free to offer them.
I have some questions, and of course, my input.

1. Are the ones who agree, considered experts?
2. Are the ones who disagree considered novices, idiots, or something else?
3. What if some agree because of who the scientist is that presents the "discovery", or because they favor the interpretation... That's possible right?
4. What happens when the accepted / agreed upon conclusion is turned on it's head, do the experts consider the reality that science is not based on expert opinion? How are the novice and "idiot" scientists viewed afterward? Are they ever looked at differently? Do the experts ever look at themselves differently?
5. Can scientists make progress in the wrong direction, based on consensus? After all, they could be wrong from the beginning, and keep building on those wrong interpretations. True?

For example, when an independent scientist does his work, regardless of consensus, and proves the community - the consensus wrong, what was it that mattered, the consensus, or the results of the experiment?

How often have we heard of scientists being discredited for going against the consensus.
Alfred Wegener
Despite overwhelming criticism from most leading geologists, who regarded him as a mere meteorologist and outsider meddling in their field, Wegener did not back down but worked even harder to strengthen his theory.

Scientific Consensus Is Almost Never Wrong — Almost
In the 1960s geologists had to throw out their textbooks
Geologists were sure the interior of the Earth was as solid as steel so the continents couldn't float around. Wegener said, no, it is molten. Something started the continents moving and they split apart. His problem was, said Jordan, that he couldn’t explain the mechanism. And, he was fighting an established consensus.

He died of a heart attack at the age of 50.

Ignaz_Semmelweis
Described as the "saviour of mothers", [Ignaz Philipp] Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever (also known as "childbed fever") could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics.
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis supposedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later, from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.

A nervous breakdown. Oh dear.

Contrary to your view, it seems to me consensus does more harm than good, especially when it seems apparent to me, there is an appeal to it, and no one wants to investigate further.
It's an appeal that is repeated all too often - both directly, and subtly. Sort of like Heyo's response to me, moments ago. Right @Heyo?

Forcing consensus is bad for science and society
Open dialogue between scientists and the societies in which they live and work is, of course, an essential ingredient of democracy. But insisting that science operate under a mandate of consensus, which is the timbre of numerous debates, from vaccines to climate change to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is not.
The risks of scientism
Critics of the March for Science, ourselves included, have noted that the march’s program is dangerously close to “scientism” – the adoption of science as a worldview or a religion to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

It seems to me, the right approach is to practice science, and go where the evidence leads.
At the end of the day, the evidence will stand out on its own, and prove what is. That's how I see it.

Reminds me of Psalms 10:4. It's all too clear to me.
We're dealing with men here. Scientists are not infallible.

Oh... and I agree, "Saying in a debate "X is true because everyone agrees it's true" is not a valid form of debate.
Can you give one or two examples where consensus is "important or useful in other circumstances (e.g. court cases)"
Note. This thread is dealing with scientific consensus.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you.
Okay, so you form your conclusion / opinion on your interpretation of the data.
You present your findings for peer review.
Some agree. Some don't.

I hope that's correct so far. Any correction necessary, please feel free to offer them.

It depends. Many times we just all agree on what the data indicates, we make sure to memorialize that agreement, and then we move on accordingly (we incorporate this new info into our thinking). Usually when there's disagreement it's because the data isn't clear enough. For example, there might not be enough of it, it may have been collected improperly (not dishonestly, just not according to protocols), or it might not show any clear patterns. When that happens, we almost always all agree that we need more/better data and we start working on how to get it.

It's very rare for there to be significant disagreements or one or two holdouts within our group. That's because we go to great lengths to clearly and specifically design our studies to ensure we meet our needs ahead of time. That way no one can say "You didn't collect the data properly" after the fact.

Are the ones who agree, considered experts?
Are the ones who disagree considered novices, idiots, or something else?

Not at all. A colleague's expertise is determined by their background and experience, not whether they agree with a group or a conclusion.

As long as a person's objections or disagreements are based on valid scientific concerns, their reputation and status is secure.

What if some agree because of who the scientist is that presents the "discovery", or because they favor the interpretation... That's possible right?

I suppose, but I've never seen that happen though. I would expect that sort of thing to be exposed pretty quickly.

What happens when the accepted / agreed upon conclusion is turned on it's head, do the experts consider the reality that science is not based on expert opinion? How are the novice and "idiot" scientists viewed afterward? Are they ever looked at differently? Do the experts ever look at themselves differently?

First of all, the environment you're depicting just doesn't exist. We don't put our colleagues into categories of "idiots", "novices", etc. We're all colleagues.

To your larger point, I have been in a couple of situations where a significant, previously agreed upon conclusion was negated by subsequent data or analyses, and it's not what you seem to think. It's not devastating nor is it cause for all of us to start questioning science or each other. We all understand.....that's how science works.

Every scientist understands that at any point, anything you previously thought was true might turn out to be wrong. Now with most things that's not going to happen. We're not at all likely to discover that the earth is really flat for example. But we also understand that, especially with conclusions that are based on sparse or ambiguous data, every new data set carries the potential to reveal something entirely new.

In all the times I've been involved in those sorts of situations, it was very exciting for us. Being there at a time when things get turned on their head and we have to rethink much of what we thought we knew is exhilarating and engaging. I absolutely loved being there and consider myself lucky to have been involved.

Can scientists make progress in the wrong direction, based on consensus? After all, they could be wrong from the beginning, and keep building on those wrong interpretations. True?

Of course.

For example, when an independent scientist does his work, regardless of consensus, and proves the community - the consensus wrong, what was it that mattered, the consensus, or the results of the experiment?

In science, the data always takes precedence.

How often have we heard of scientists being discredited for going against the consensus.
Alfred Wegener
Despite overwhelming criticism from most leading geologists, who regarded him as a mere meteorologist and outsider meddling in their field, Wegener did not back down but worked even harder to strengthen his theory.

Scientific Consensus Is Almost Never Wrong — Almost
In the 1960s geologists had to throw out their textbooks
Geologists were sure the interior of the Earth was as solid as steel so the continents couldn't float around. Wegener said, no, it is molten. Something started the continents moving and they split apart. His problem was, said Jordan, that he couldn’t explain the mechanism. And, he was fighting an established consensus.

He died of a heart attack at the age of 50.

Ignaz_Semmelweis
Described as the "saviour of mothers", [Ignaz Philipp] Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever (also known as "childbed fever") could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics.
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis supposedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later, from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.

A nervous breakdown. Oh dear.

Yep, as I described above, in science the data is what matters.

Contrary to your view, it seems to me consensus does more harm than good, especially when it seems apparent to me, there is an appeal to it, and no one wants to investigate further.

I'm not sure what to say to that other than to point out that you have effectively no experience or background in science, so your opinions about science or scientists are.....well....I'll just leave it at that.

Forcing consensus is bad for science and society
Open dialogue between scientists and the societies in which they live and work is, of course, an essential ingredient of democracy. But insisting that science operate under a mandate of consensus, which is the timbre of numerous debates, from vaccines to climate change to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is not.

I agree. Consensus must arise organically from the data, and cannot ever be forced.

The risks of scientism

Critics of the March for Science, ourselves included, have noted that the march’s program is dangerously close to “scientism” – the adoption of science as a worldview or a religion to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

I don't know what that has to do with the current topic.

It seems to me, the right approach is to practice science, and go where the evidence leads.
At the end of the day, the evidence will stand out on its own, and prove what is. That's how I see it.

And that's exactly what we do.

Reminds me of Psalms 10:4. It's all too clear to me.
We're dealing with men here. Scientists are not infallible.

I've never seen anyone say otherwise.

Oh... and I agree, "Saying in a debate "X is true because everyone agrees it's true" is not a valid form of debate.
Can you give one or two examples where consensus is "important or useful in other circumstances (e.g. court cases)"
Note. This thread is dealing with scientific consensus.

I already have, remember? I described for you how achieving consensus in the groups I work in has been vital.

 

[nPeace]

It depends. Many times we just all agree on what the data indicates, we make sure to memorialize that agreement, and then we move on accordingly (we incorporate this new info into our thinking). Usually when there's disagreement it's because the data isn't clear enough. For example, there might not be enough of it, it may have been collected improperly (not dishonestly, just not according to protocols), or it might not show any clear patterns. When that happens, we almost always all agree that we need more/better data and we start working on how to get it.

That's true. Usually when there's disagreement it's because the data isn't clear enough.

It's very rare for there to be significant disagreements or one or two holdouts within our group. That's because we go to great lengths to clearly and specifically design our studies to ensure we meet our needs ahead of time. That way no one can say "You didn't collect the data properly" after the fact.


Not at all. A colleague's expertise is determined by their background and experience, not whether they agree with a group or a conclusion.

As long as a person's objections or disagreements are based on valid scientific concerns, their reputation and status is secure.

So a one is a novice based on what?
The examples of those two men suggests they were novices from the point of view of the experts.
How can a novice be right when the expert is wrong...
The expert can learn something from the novice them.
Or maybe it's just that the novice isn't always right, and can be wrong. So what's the use of such categorizing?

Why I ask, is because it is claimed...A significant contributor to variation in consensus estimates is the conflation of general scientific opinion with expert scientific opinion. Figure 1 demonstrates that consensus estimates are highly sensitive to the expertise of the sampled group. An accurate estimate of scientific consensus reflects the level of agreement among experts in climate science; that is, scientists publishing peer-reviewed research on climate change.

I suppose, but I've never seen that happen though. I would expect that sort of thing to be exposed pretty quickly.


First of all, the environment you're depicting just doesn't exist. We don't put our colleagues into categories of "idiots", "novices", etc. We're all colleagues.

Ha Ha. Maybe you don't read too many facts outside your lab. No. It exists.

To your larger point, I have been in a couple of situations where a significant, previously agreed upon conclusion was negated by subsequent data or analyses, and it's not what you seem to think. It's not devastating nor is it cause for all of us to start questioning science or each other. We all understand.....that's how science works.

Every scientist understands that at any point, anything you previously thought was true might turn out to be wrong. Now with most things that's not going to happen. We're not at all likely to discover that the earth is really flat for example. But we also understand that, especially with conclusions that are based on sparse or ambiguous data, every new data set carries the potential to reveal something entirely new.

In all the times I've been involved in those sorts of situations, it was very exciting for us. Being there at a time when things get turned on their head and we have to rethink much of what we thought we knew is exhilarating and engaging. I absolutely loved being there and consider myself lucky to have been involved.

Where did you read that I think it's devastating or anything of the sort? Could you point out where, or is it perhaps you are running with an assumption.

Of course.


In science, the data always takes precedence.


Yep, as I described above, in science the data is what matters.


I'm not sure what to say to that other than to point out that you have effectively no experience or background in science, so your opinions about science or scientists are.....well....I'll just leave it at that.


I agree. Consensus must arise organically from the data, and cannot ever be forced.


I don't know what that has to do with the current topic.


And that's exactly what we do.

No, it not.

I've never seen anyone say otherwise.


I already have, remember? I described for you how achieving consensus in the groups I work in has been vital.

If you say so. I never heard you say anything about a court case. You applied it in science research. So we just circled back around. That's all.

 

[ecco]

Here is the post in question that contains what I actually argued, and not your fabricated strawman:

You cleverly left off the link to the actual post. We know why. Without the link, I would have to go back through 30 pages of posts to see when you made those comments.

Then I could go back from there to see the first posts you made on the subject. Then I could show how you changed your wording.

However, I've already documented how you used Wikipedia and then denied being guilty of using an argument from authority. I've already documented how you change the goalposts like moving from discussing argument from authority to focusing on refutations. I've already documented how you duck and dodge. So I don't think it's necessary for me to do any more work on this subject.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's true. Usually when there's disagreement it's because the data isn't clear enough.

So a one is a novice based on what?

It'd be based on their level of experience in a specific area. But again, we don't ever classify each other in the way you're depicting. As I said, we're colleagues working as a team.

The examples of those two men suggests they were novices from the point of view of the experts.
How can a novice be right when the expert is wrong...
The expert can learn something from the novice them.
Or maybe it's just that the novice isn't always right, and can be wrong. So what's the use of such categorizing?

"Such categorizing" doesn't exist in any of the science I've been involved with.

A few years ago one of the entities I work with hired a new biologist. The guy was fresh out of grad school and pretty young, whereas most of the rest of us were older and had been working on the project for years. One of the first things the new guy did was develop a statistical model (he was very good at those) that shed new light on a significant issue and caused us to rethink some of our previous conclusions.

At no point did anyone ever say or express anything having to do with him being young or new. We all took his model and the results as they were, and it turned out he was right. And we were all very glad to have him on our team and excited about his results.

Why I ask, is because it is claimed...A significant contributor to variation in consensus estimates is the conflation of general scientific opinion with expert scientific opinion. Figure 1 demonstrates that consensus estimates are highly sensitive to the expertise of the sampled group. An accurate estimate of scientific consensus reflects the level of agreement among experts in climate science; that is, scientists publishing peer-reviewed research on climate change.

I'm not sure how that's relevant here, since it differentiates between agreement on climate change among "experts", i.e. scientists in the field of climatology, and people who have no background or experience in climatology. Unsurprisingly, they found that the non-experts (people with no background or experience in climatology) are less likely to agree with the consensus of experts.

That's not at all like the situations we're discussing.

Ha Ha. Maybe you don't read too many facts outside your lab. No. It exists.

No offense, but I'm not about to take your empty assertions about how scientists do their work over my own experiences doing science.

Where did you read that I think it's devastating or anything of the sort? Could you point out where, or is it perhaps you are running with an assumption.

As long as you understand that getting data that overturns previous conclusions is a good thing in science.

No, it not.

Again, you simply saying "Nuh uh" isn't at all compelling or meaningful.

If you say so. I never heard you say anything about a court case. You applied it in science research. So we just circled back around. That's all.

I honestly don't understand this reply. As I noted, I've already described for you how and why we work to achieve consensus in the scientific groups I work in, and why it's important.

Perhaps you can explain something to me.....why is the issue of scientific consensus so important to you?

 

[Heyo]

Contrary to your view, it seems to me consensus does more harm than good, especially when it seems apparent to me, there is an appeal to it, and no one wants to investigate further.
It's an appeal that is repeated all too often - both directly, and subtly. Sort of like Heyo's response to me, moments ago. Right @Heyo?

I don't know which reply you are hinting at (you may have read it moments ago while wrote it yesterday) but when I appeal to the scientific consensus, I'm not saying that what most experts agree upon is right - only that it is most probably right.
And in science gaining consensus (or disrupting it) is done via the scientific method, by making an experiment that can falsify a position.
That's usually how a consensus emerged in the first place, a theory wasn't falsified by any experiment yet.

 

[nPeace]

It'd be based on their level of experience in a specific area. But again, we don't ever classify each other in the way you're depicting. As I said, we're colleagues working as a team.


"Such categorizing" doesn't exist in any of the science I've been involved with.

A few years ago one of the entities I work with hired a new biologist. The guy was fresh out of grad school and pretty young, whereas most of the rest of us were older and had been working on the project for years. One of the first things the new guy did was develop a statistical model (he was very good at those) that shed new light on a significant issue and caused us to rethink some of our previous conclusions.

At no point did anyone ever say or express anything having to do with him being young or new. We all took his model and the results as they were, and it turned out he was right. And we were all very glad to have him on our team and excited about his results.

Sounds good to me.

I'm not sure how that's relevant here, since it differentiates between agreement on climate change among "experts", i.e. scientists in the field of climatology, and people who have no background or experience in climatology. Unsurprisingly, they found that the non-experts (people with no background or experience in climatology) are less likely to agree with the consensus of experts.

That's not at all like the situations we're discussing.

'scientists in the field of climatology, and people...'???
I read... "the conflation of general scientific opinion with expert scientific opinion. ...An accurate estimate of scientific consensus reflects the level of agreement among experts in climate science; that is, scientists publishing peer-reviewed research on climate change. As shown in table 1, low estimates of consensus arise from samples that include non-experts such as scientists (or non-scientists) who are not actively publishing climate research, while samples of experts are consistent in showing overwhelming consensus."

People? Yes, scientists are people, bt why do you here refer to them as people in contrast to scientists in the field of climate science?
It is very relevant, as was shown by, again... most leading geologists, who regarded him as a mere meteorologist and outsider meddling in their field... and again... some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it...

No offense, but I'm not about to take your empty assertions about how scientists do their work over my own experiences doing science.

Not that it matters to you whether I am offended or not, but I have put up with your empty assertions and claims for quite a few months. No offense.
Take this baseless claim for example... "First of all, the environment you're depicting just doesn't exist. We don't put our colleagues into categories of "idiots", "novices", etc. We're all colleagues."
Can you back up that claim?

At least your claim of "empty assertion", is just as empty an assertion as your previous ones. Nothing new to me.
Name-calling as a substitute for scientific evidence

Scientists attacked
a critique in the Genome Biology and Evolution journal that is striking for its strident language.
"Everything that Encode claims is wrong. Their statistics are horrible, for a start," the lead author of the paper, Professor Dan Graur, of Houston University, Texas, told the Observer. "This is not the work of scientists. This is the work of a group of badly trained technicians."

Bullying in science
In the last few years, an increasing number of scientists in the STEM field are finally reporting incidents of bullying in the workplace (also described as harassment, psychological violence, or workplace abuse). In December 2017, the article “Harassment in science is real” appeared in Science. Early this year “We need a bigger conversation about bullying in academia” was posted in The Guardian. Both articles highlight the desperate need to tackle bullying in academia with proper policies. After experiencing workplace harassment myself, I decided to share my story with my colleagues. Unexpectedly, I discovered that many of them (women especially) had experienced bullying in the lab at some point in their career, ranging from when they were undergraduates to PIs. The stories I heard persuaded me that we need to start a serious conversation about abusive supervisors and bullying in science in general.

I suppose some humans like to make out what the adore to be a special cut above everything else.
Oh. Sorry if my laughing sparked a fuse. I was not laughing at you.

As long as you understand that getting data that overturns previous conclusions is a good thing in science.

So long as you understand that that good thing also highlights why appealing to the consensus is such a bad thing, because when the consensus is disproved, it is part of the reason many people don't trust the science.
It's like hearing politicians speak.
That is the point of Michael Crichton... 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.

Again, you simply saying "Nuh uh" isn't at all compelling or meaningful.

Perhaps you need to follow the conversation then.
I said... It seems to me, the right approach is to practice science, and go where the evidence leads.
At the end of the day, the evidence will stand out on its own, and prove what is. That's how I see it.

You said...And that's exactly what we do.
As I said. the practice of science is to go where the evidence leads. The evidence will stand out on its own, and prove what is.
You don't need consensus for that. You need consensus when you need to interpret things, and have the opinions or judgments of the community. You need consensus, when conclusions are based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice. You need consensus when there's disagreement because the data isn't clear enough.

I honestly don't understand this reply. As I noted, I've already described for you how and why we work to achieve consensus in the scientific groups I work in, and why it's important.

No problem.

Perhaps you can explain something to me.....why is the issue of scientific consensus so important to you?

I think the OP explains that, and if you missed it, you can always return there. Besides that, it's irrelevant as to the importance of it.
If you don't want to talk about it, that is quite fine. The thread does not have anyone chained to it.

 

[nPeace]

I don't know which reply you are hinting at (you may have read it moments ago while wrote it yesterday) but when I appeal to the scientific consensus, I'm not saying that what most experts agree upon is right - only that it is most probably right.
And in science gaining consensus (or disrupting it) is done via the scientific method, by making an experiment that can falsify a position.
That's usually how a consensus emerged in the first place, a theory wasn't falsified by any experiment yet.

Hit and miss/
You are happy with that. Just something that is not necessarily true, but maybe.
I understand. Mine may not be much differnt to yours, but... it's not a hit and miss.

 

[Rise]

You cleverly left off the link to the actual post. We know why. Without the link, I would have to go back through 30 pages of posts to see when you made those comments.

Then I could go back from there to see the first posts you made on the subject. Then I could show how you changed your wording.

Logical fallacies: "argument by assertion", "ad hominem", and "appeal to personal laziness".

Merely because you assert you think I intentionally left something out of my quotation because you think it would disprove my argument doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.

You will find no proof of your claim by actually looking at my post.

Post #587 on page 30.

Therefore, you have no reason to accuse me of having a motive to hide it. Obviously I am not hiding it as I just gave you where to find it and am not worried about what you will find there.

Your claim is also factually wrong on the basis that you would only have to go back 2 pages to find my first response to you which also is the page that contains the post I was quoting from. And you'd only have to go back 4 pages to find my first post in this thread. So it was never unreasonable that you should be able to go back to it if you had good reason to suspect there was something in there that was relevant to supposedly disproving anything I said.

If you can't be bothered to do that then you it might prove you are lazy but it doesn't prove your claims are true just because you are lazy.
I am not aware of any existing fallacy name for your line of argument, so I invented a new one and dub it the "appeal to personal laziness".
Ie. "I can't be bothered to look up what you are referring to therefore it must be wrong".

The fact that you are accusing me of being dishonest in what I have argued is a baseless ad hominem that you can't prove is true by quoting anything I posted.

You are resorting to baseless ad hominem fallacies because you can't refute my arguments on their merits.

However, I've already documented how you used Wikipedia and then denied being guilty of using an argument from authority.

Logical fallacy, "begging the question/circular reasoning" and "failure to meet the burden of rejoinder. "

You are engaged in circular reasoning because your premise assumes that to quote wikipedia is automatically committing a fallacious argument from authority, and then you try to use your premise to prove why you think I committed a fallacy of argument by authority because I quoted something from wikipedia.

But your premise has already been disproven in my 1200 word refutation of your claim. Wherein I outline the conditions under which wikipedia could be quoted without it being an appeal to authority.

You have made no attempt to offer a counter argument to anything I argued which proved my conclusion was true.

Which means you have failed the burden of rejoinder.

You cannot continue to claim your conclusion is true unless you are wiling to try to offer a valid counter argument against my arguments.

If you are unable to offer a valid counter argument then you lose the debate by definition.

If you are unwilling to offer a valid counter argument then you tacitly concede the debate by being unwilling to meet the standard by which a debate could be had.

I've already documented how you change the goalposts like moving from discussing argument from authority to focusing on refutations.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion, argument by repetition, and failure to meet the burden of rejoinder.

I have already given counter arguments which refute your claim that I either moved the goalposts or changed the topic. You have shown no error with my arguments, and made no attempt to offer a counter argument to them.
You are merely asserting you are right and repeating your original refuted claims.

But your claims don't stop being refuted just because you repeat them. You would need to offer a valid counter argument to do that.

Since you have not attempted to offer a valid counter argument: that makes you guilty of the failing to meet your burden of rejoinder. If you are unwilling to offer a valid counter argument then you concede the debate by consequence of being unwilling to meet the standards by which debate takes place.

And if you are unable to offer a valid counter argument then you lose the debate by definition.

I suspect it's the later but you just don't want to have to admit you don't have a valid counter argument, so you're hoping you can just fallacious repeat yourself in order to avoid having anyone notice.

I've already documented how you duck and dodge.

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

I already gave counter arguments that refuted your claim, and you have offered no counter arguments to that.

Instead all you have done is merely repeated your original claim as an assertion - but repeating it doesn't make it stop being refuted just because you repeat it.

By your unwillingness or inability to give a defense of your claim against opposing arguments you tacitly concede that your argument has been refuted.

Only a valid counter argument in defense of your claim can lift the label of "refuted" off of it.

So I don't think it's necessary for me to do any more work on this subject.

What you think (ie your opinion) doesn't change the fact that you have, as I just pointed out, objectively failed to meet your burden of rejoinder by offering no valid counter argument to my arguments. All you have offered in their place is assertion, repetition, and ad hominem fallacies, and the novel appeal to personal laziness.

As such, you objectively concede the debate in my favor unless you are willing and able to offer a valid counter argument rather than just fallacious distractions and repetition of already refuted claims.

 

[Jose Fly]

'scientists in the field of climatology, and people...'???
I read... "the conflation of general scientific opinion with expert scientific opinion. ...An accurate estimate of scientific consensus reflects the level of agreement among experts in climate science; that is, scientists publishing peer-reviewed research on climate change. As shown in table 1, low estimates of consensus arise from samples that include non-experts such as scientists (or non-scientists) who are not actively publishing climate research, while samples of experts are consistent in showing overwhelming consensus."

People? Yes, scientists are people, bt why do you here refer to them as people in contrast to scientists in the field of climate science?

Yes, scientists (people) whose background and education lies outside of the relevant field. I don't find it at all surprising that when you survey actual climatologists you get a clear consensus on climate change, and when you do another survey that includes scientists who have no background or experience in climatology the level of agreement on climate change drops.

The only thing that stands out to me about that is why it had to be done in the first place. If someone had asked me how including non-climatologists in surveys of opinions on climate change would affect the data on consensus, I would have instantly predicted it would cause the amount of consensus to decline.

It is very relevant, as was shown by, again... most leading geologists, who regarded him as a mere meteorologist and outsider meddling in their field... and again... some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it...

I'm not sure what the point is. In all the cases you've cited, it was the data that mattered the most.

Is it possible you're arguing against a straw man and/or engaging in black/white thinking, where you're arguing against a belief that scientific consensus is perfect and never wrong?

Not that it matters to you whether I am offended or not, but I have put up with your empty assertions and claims for quite a few months. No offense.
Take this baseless claim for example... "First of all, the environment you're depicting just doesn't exist. We don't put our colleagues into categories of "idiots", "novices", etc. We're all colleagues."
Can you back up that claim?

I could if you'd be willing to come to some meetings and conferences.

Scientists attacked
a critique in the Genome Biology and Evolution journal that is striking for its strident language.
"Everything that Encode claims is wrong. Their statistics are horrible, for a start," the lead author of the paper, Professor Dan Graur, of Houston University, Texas, told the Observer. "This is not the work of scientists. This is the work of a group of badly trained technicians."

And your point is.......?

Bullying in science

In the last few years, an increasing number of scientists in the STEM field are finally reporting incidents of bullying in the workplace (also described as harassment, psychological violence, or workplace abuse). In December 2017, the article “Harassment in science is real” appeared in Science. Early this year “We need a bigger conversation about bullying in academia” was posted in The Guardian. Both articles highlight the desperate need to tackle bullying in academia with proper policies. After experiencing workplace harassment myself, I decided to share my story with my colleagues. Unexpectedly, I discovered that many of them (women especially) had experienced bullying in the lab at some point in their career, ranging from when they were undergraduates to PIs. The stories I heard persuaded me that we need to start a serious conversation about abusive supervisors and bullying in science in general.

And your point is........?

I suppose some humans like to make out what the adore to be a special cut above everything else.
Oh. Sorry if my laughing sparked a fuse. I was not laughing at you.

I've no idea what you're getting at.

So long as you understand that that good thing also highlights why appealing to the consensus is such a bad thing, because when the consensus is disproved, it is part of the reason many people don't trust the science.
It's like hearing politicians speak.

I suppose that's the case for people who don't understand how science works and harbor some sort of grudge against scientists, as well as people who tend to think in black/white terms.

Perhaps you need to follow the conversation then.
I said... It seems to me, the right approach is to practice science, and go where the evidence leads.
At the end of the day, the evidence will stand out on its own, and prove what is. That's how I see it.

You said...And that's exactly what we do.
As I said. the practice of science is to go where the evidence leads. The evidence will stand out on its own, and prove what is.
You don't need consensus for that.

Actually, you do. No one conducts experiments, field studies, etc. in a vacuum. Before you start doing them you need to first establish things like what you're testing, your null hypothesis, your protocols, your equipment, etc. And more than likely you're going to be working as part of a team, so it's important that everyone on the team operates under the same framework and understanding. IOW....consensus.

You need consensus when you need to interpret things

Not always, or at least initially. You can interpret your own results and write that up into your paper or report, and then see if you can get consensus around it.

You need consensus, when conclusions are based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice. You need consensus when there's disagreement because the data isn't clear enough.

Again, not always. Oftentimes when you can't convince your colleagues of your results or interpretations that's an indication that more data or further tests are needed.

I think the OP explains that, and if you missed it, you can always return there. Besides that, it's irrelevant as to the importance of it.
If you don't want to talk about it, that is quite fine. The thread does not have anyone chained to it.

It looks to me like you don't like the fact that there is consensus on conclusions you don't agree with (evolution and climate change), so rather than offer information that would challenge the conclusions, you instead are trying to knock down the concept of consensus as a whole.

From where I sit, you wouldn't do that if you had actual data that would call the conclusions into question. So I guess you're doing the next best thing.....arguing "Consensus doesn't matter". Well, as I've explained, arguing "X is true because all the experts agree" in a debate is a fallacy, but that doesn't mean consensus is therefore meaningless in all circumstances.

Try and avoid black/white thinking as much as you can.

 

[cladking]

As long as a person's objections or disagreements are based on valid scientific concerns, their reputation and status is secure.

Rofl.

"Valid scientific concerns" is merely shorthand for the status quo.

You may have no idea how little real science exists in some fields. Anyone can quote an et al (a dead Peer) and look like a genius but in some cases these ancient Peers have no foundation whatsoever for their beliefs and assumptions. There are fields where the Peers are apparently wrong across the board; ie- they have nothing right. Anthropology, for example, is a mess.

 

[Heyo]

Hit and miss/
You are happy with that. Just something that is not necessarily true, but maybe.
I understand. Mine may not be much differnt to yours, but... it's not a hit and miss.

Yep, you are very consistent in always missing the point.

Maybe this analogy may teach you the ratio behind "scientific consensus":
Scientific consensus is like the foundation of a building. When we agree that the foundation is safe enough, we can build upon it. We can do more work because we don't worry about the foundation any more.
You don't trust the foundation and you keep on testing it when we are at the 14th level.
Every once in a century, one of our buildings is shaking. But we have already built a city while you are still not trusting your first foundation.

So, scientific consensus is a pragmatic tool to get things done. If you think you have a better tool, show how it works, if not, don't stand in the way.

 

[tas8831]

You need to prove your claim is true by giving logical reasons why anything I said qualifies as a fallacy.

You never do.
You never refer to evidence, either.

 

[Rise]

You're hilarious!

WHAT ARGUMENT WAS I MAKING, GENIUS?????

Your antics are a joke that is for sure.

You saw it here first, folks! Now OBSERVATIONS can be logical fallacies!

You weren't making a valid argument - that was the point.

You were committing an ad hominem fallacy by attacking the character of people you disagree with in lieu of being able to make a valid point.

The guy whose primary means of argument is bare assertion said so!

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot quote a single thing I have said in this thread that would qualify as a fallacious argument by assertion.
Your claim is not true just because you assert it is so. You need to support and prove your claim with evidence and logical arguments.

You never do.
You never refer to evidence, either.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot quote any argument I have made in this thread that is lacking in sufficient evidence for my argument.
Merely asserting your claim is true doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.

Fallacy of walls of verbiage mean I'm right....

All those words, and you say nothing.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that I have said nothing doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.
You cannot give any logical reasons why your claim would be true.

Logical fallacy, nonsequitur. There is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion.
In no way would the size of someone's post prove your arguments are valid or your conclusions are right.

Indeed. Not to mention his frequent (almost incessant) use of argument by assertion.

You have shown no fault with any of my mentions of you committing logical fallacies.

If it appears to you that I am "almost incessantly" pointing out that you are guilty of committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion, and you cannot show there is any fault in me for doing so, then the only logical conclusion here is that you are guilty of almost incessantly committing the fallacy of argument by assertion.

So the real question then is: Why do you feel entitled to argue using fallacious logic without having to make valid logical arguments?

You must feel entitled to do so if you take issue with me validly pointing out the logical faults of your attempted responses.

For someone who does not feel entitled to use fallacious logic would understand it is their responsibility to fix the flaws in their argument if they want to continue to insist what they claim is true.

This is what a creationist wrote about wikipedia:

"Ah, well Wikipedia said it. I am so convinced!"

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

What that individual had to say about wikipedia has no relevance to refuting any argument I have made.

I guess we should not expect you to provide support for your many (erroneous) acts of argument by assertion?
HERE, for example?

Logical fallacy, red herring.

The thread you are linking to has no relevance to refuting anything I have argued in this thread. Even if we assumed your claim were true that I supposedly committed a fallacy of assertion in another thread that wouldn't prove any of your claims about my posts in this thread.

You are unable to refute anything I have argued in this thread which is why you are trying to change the topic to distract from that fact.

 

[infrabenji]

How oft do people hear a response like...
There is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution.

There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...


What has that got to do with anything?
Especially in a debate, why is that relevant? It's nothing but a fallacy.

Argumentum ad populum
When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority

...you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual - and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

“...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).

For Earth Day: Michael Crichton explains why there is "no such thing as consensus science" | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
...the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

Spoiler

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.

Rough thread for you. It looks like your argument isn't taking home the gold today. Just curious why'd you use a slime piece of media from a dark money group called AEI that uses Michael Chrichton's fame to push AEI's anti climate change agenda? Did you even read that article? You just scanned the internet for anything that confirmed your bias and cut and pasted it didn't you. You must be young if you don't know what AEI is. AEI is funded primarily by fossil fuels and has hosted a variety of scumbags like Dick Cheney and Dick Devos. You're literally borrowing your "facts" about science from a slime news piece meant to discredit climate change for the benefit of fossil fuel companies. That's so hilarious! Did you even read the first comment after Michael Chrichton got done with his anti science rhetoric. I'll post it for you. The guy is an Australian-based geologist who spent the bulk of his career in the coal and oil exploration industries as per his statement refuting the article.

Broad scientific consensus, particularly in the last 25 years, is a very strong indicator of the validity of a theory. Climate science is has many alternative competing models constantly being tested and improved. Furthermore, the global warming mechanisms are straight-forward for anyone with a physics background.

The AEI echo chamber is both sad and irresponsible, funded in large part by fossil fuel energy interests. With over a trillion dollars in as yet untapped energy assets, they are strongly motivated.

It is hard to know a scientific truth, but relatively easy to identify scientific arguments which are unfounded or simply rhetorical.

It is critical to science to keep an open mind, but when I evaluate the current arguments of climate skeptics, all I have found is quackery and shills.

I will say Michael Chrichton is a medical doctor and taught anthropology as well as being an author. But that doesn't mean you would commit the fallacy of appealing to authority by relying on the authority of a shill paid by big oil to push an anti-science anti-climate change based agenda? This happened because you're not doing your due diligence and using reliable sources and thereby totally undermining your position? But it looks like everyone has already pointed that out to you. Don't crib slime news and prop it up as evidence for your biased claims. Do a little research first to make sure your sources are trustworthy. How embarrassing.