Argumentum ad populum

[SkepticThinker]

ecco's a he.

Thanks you for the info. I will make a mental note.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Well, he did.


Argument ad boredom.

I don't view the world through the same bizarre presuppositional lens that you do, thankfully. How boring.

 

[Rise]

Well, he did.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

Merely repeating your fallacious argument by assertion doesn't make it stop being fallacious just because you repeat it.

Argument ad boredom.

Logical fallacy, appeal to mockery.

Unable to refute the fact that you have no valid arguments to offer, but only fallacious errors, you try to appeal to mockery to hide and distract from that fact.

I don't view the world through the same bizarre presuppositional lens that you do, thankfully. How boring.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely accusing me of having a "bizarre presuppositional lens" doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so. You have no arguments or evidence to demonstrate why we should believe your claim is true.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.
Even if we assumed your claim were true, you have given no logical reasons why your claim would be relevant to refuting anything I argued in this thread.

Logical fallacy, nonsequitur.
There is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion.
Claiming I supposedly have a "bizarre presuppositional lens" has no logical connection to supporting your original claim that the other person had offered valid logical support for their claim that was not already refuted.

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.
Given that your accusation has no basis in anything and no relevance or logical connection to what you are trying to argue against, your baseless accusations represents merely an attempt at ad hominem attacks on character in lieu of a valid counter argument because you are not able to construct a valid counter argument.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Fun stuff.

 

[Rise]

Fun stuff.

Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.
By being unwilling or unable to offer a counter argument, you tacitly concede your original claim is refuted and therefore you tacitly concede the debate.

 

[infrabenji]

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

You realize @Rise that just cribbing logical fallacies and mis-applying them doesn’t win you any debates or change anyone’s mind. You seem so caught up in trying associate every statement someone makes to a logical fallacy and yet never move the conversation forward? Wonder why that is? I’ve seen so many people just walk away from conversations with you not because your arguments are good but because you appeal to logical fallacies so much that your argument gets lost in translation. Why don’t you try listening for once instead of just trying to point out where you think, and I definitely mean think, everyone is wrong. If you can’t explain your material simply then you simply don’t have a good grasp of the material. Now scream into the computer every logical fallacy you can think of while I water my indoor earth ship garden. Have fun boring people.

P.S. Only 1 in 13 people give you a rating on your content. You have over 1,000 comments and only 82 ratings. That should tell you everything you need to know about the kind of impact you have on this forum. People aren’t impressed. Maybe, it’s time to change your strategy.

 

[Rise]

You realize @Rise that just cribbing logical fallacies and mis-applying them

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot give any logical reasons or evidence that a single fallacy I have called out is in error.
Merely asserting it doesn't prove it true just because you assert it is so.

And if my calling out the fallacies for what they are is not in error then the fault rests with those committing the fallacies instead of providing valid counter arguments.

doesn’t win you any debates

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot give any logical reasons or evidence to support your claim that I supposedly have not logically won the debate in this thread.

Merely asserting it doesn't prove it is true just because you assert it is so.

The onus is on you as the one making the claim to prove your claim is true.

or change anyone’s mind.

Logical fallacy, "hitchens fallacy".

The truth of a conclusion or the validity of an argument is not determined by someone's ability to have their mind changed by that information.

You seem so caught up in trying associate every statement someone makes to a logical fallacy and yet never move the conversation forward? Wonder why that is?

The relevant question is not why am I calling out your fallacious arguments for being fallacious - but why are you using fallacious arguments in the first place instead of valid arguments?

If you cannot find any fault or error with what I have identified in your arguments as fallacious, then the burden is on you to fix the faults in your invalid arguments to make them valid.

If there is no error in what I am pointing out as faults in your arguments, and yet it appears to you I spend most of my time pointing out the faults in your arguments, then the obvious conclusion is that is because your arguments are full of faults with little valid substance to them.

You obviously have not noticed that the amount of fallacies that must be pointed out differ greatly from one poster to another - because some of them know how to regularly make valid arguments and counter arguments. Conversely, some of them almost never do. You are in the later camp, as evidenced just by this post alone.

No debate to establish truth can take place if you don't feel you must be bound by the laws of logic in the kinds of arguments you try to make.
Therefore, the conversation can't move forward if you aren't willing to abide by the laws of logic as a point of common ground.

If your only method of debate is to sling around ad hominems and unsupported assertions then your contribution to the discussion has no more value than an ape flinging their excrement around at those they disagree with - it doesn't prove anything but it makes a mess of the thread and distracts other people from having legitimate valid exchanges based on logic.

I’ve seen so many people just walk away from conversations with you not because your arguments are good but because you appeal to logical fallacies so much that your argument gets lost in translation.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You have no evidence or logical arguments to establish your claim that my arguments supposedly aren't "good".

Logical fallacy, "correlation implies causation".
You are operating out of unproven assumptions. Which is the assumption that people are capable of providing valid counter arguments but simply choose not to, when in fact it is more likely they cannot offer a valid counter argument and realize it which is why they stop trying to argue.

The reason the later is more likely is because the former requires you to assume that all my conclusions are supposedly wrong, and therefore they all could be refuted, if only someone were willing to do it, but no one wants to.

But you have no reason to believe that assumption is true. Indeed, it is a very unreasonable assumption to make when you can't even refute a single conclusion I've argued in this thread.
Upon what basis would you presume all my conclusions are always wrong and therefore if people leave in defeat without a counter argument it can only be because they didn't want to give said counter argument?

Why don’t you try listening for once instead of just trying to point out where you think, and I definitely mean think, everyone is wrong.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot prove your claim is true that my counter arguments supposedly represent only an opinion rather than a logical statement of truth.
Merely asserting it doesn't prove it is true just because you assert it is so.

P.S. Only 1 in 13 people give you a rating on your content. You have over 1,000 comments and only 82 ratings.

...

People aren’t impressed.

Logical fallacy, appeal to popularity.

The popularity of a claim has no bearing on the truth or falseness of that claim

If you can’t explain your material simply then you simply don’t have a good grasp of the material.
Now scream into the computer every logical fallacy you can think of while I water my indoor earth ship garden. Have fun boring people.

That should tell you everything you need to know about the kind of impact you have on this forum. ...Maybe, it’s time to change your strategy.

You aren't qualified to tell anyone how they should conduct themselves in a debate. The last time you tried to debate something with me you had a mini mental meltdown when you realized you didn't have a counter argument to defend what you believe and none of your usual fallacies were working - so instead you went on a long screed trying to convince us you didn't care enough to give an argument because your life was supposedly so much better that you didn't need to care.

Forgive me if I don't take advice from you and start defending the truth of my conclusions by talking about the size of my boat.

 

[infrabenji]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot give any logical reasons or evidence that a single fallacy I have called out is in error.
Merely asserting it doesn't prove it true just because you assert it is so.

And if my calling out the fallacies for what they are is not in error then the fault rests with those committing the fallacies instead of providing valid counter arguments.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot give any logical reasons or evidence to support your claim that I supposedly have not logically won the debate in this thread.

Merely asserting it doesn't prove it is true just because you assert it is so.

The onus is on you as the one making the claim to prove your claim is true.



Logical fallacy, "hitchens fallacy".

The truth of a conclusion or the validity of an argument is not determined by someone's ability to have their mind changed by that information.



The relevant question is not why am I calling out your fallacious arguments for being fallacious - but why are you using fallacious arguments in the first place instead of valid arguments?

If you cannot find any fault or error with what I have identified in your arguments as fallacious, then the burden is on you to fix the faults in your invalid arguments to make them valid.

If there is no error in what I am pointing out as faults in your arguments, and yet it appears to you I spend most of my time pointing out the faults in your arguments, then the obvious conclusion is that is because your arguments are full of faults with little valid substance to them.

You obviously have not noticed that the amount of fallacies that must be pointed out differ greatly from one poster to another - because some of them know how to regularly make valid arguments and counter arguments. Conversely, some of them almost never do. You are in the later camp, as evidenced just by this post alone.

No debate to establish truth can take place if you don't feel you must be bound by the laws of logic in the kinds of arguments you try to make.
Therefore, the conversation can't move forward if you aren't willing to abide by the laws of logic as a point of common ground.

If your only method of debate is to sling around ad hominems and unsupported assertions then your contribution to the discussion has no more value than an ape flinging their excrement around at those they disagree with - it doesn't prove anything but it makes a mess of the thread and distracts other people from having legitimate valid exchanges based on logic.



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You have no evidence or logical arguments to establish your claim that my arguments supposedly aren't "good".

Logical fallacy, "correlation implies causation".
You are operating out of unproven assumptions. Which is the assumption that people are capable of providing valid counter arguments but simply choose not to, when in fact it is more likely they cannot offer a valid counter argument and realize it which is why they stop trying to argue.

The reason the later is more likely is because the former requires you to assume that all my conclusions are supposedly wrong, and therefore they all could be refuted, if only someone were willing to do it, but no one wants to.

But you have no reason to believe that assumption is true. Indeed, it is a very unreasonable assumption to make when you can't even refute a single conclusion I've argued in this thread.
Upon what basis would you presume all my conclusions are always wrong and therefore if people leave in defeat without a counter argument it can only be because they didn't want to give said counter argument?



Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot prove your claim is true that my counter arguments supposedly represent only an opinion rather than a logical statement of truth.
Merely asserting it doesn't prove it is true just because you assert it is so.



Logical fallacy, appeal to popularity.

The popularity of a claim has no bearing on the truth or falseness of that claim





You aren't qualified to tell anyone how they should conduct themselves in a debate. The last time you tried to debate something with me you had a mini mental meltdown when you realized you didn't have a counter argument to defend what you believe and none of your usual fallacies were working - so instead you went on a long screed trying to convince us you didn't care enough to give an argument because your life was supposedly so much better that you didn't need to care.

Forgive me if I don't take advice from you and start defending the truth of my conclusions by talking about the size of my boat.

Lol TL;DR I read the last part though. I have 4 degrees and was on the debate team in Highschool and College. I do have an awesome life. I have an awesome job as a consultant that pays top dollar, I get to make my own hours, and I can either work at home or at my office. I'm only 40 and I'm se to retire in 7 years. My fiancé will only be 32 when we retire. Then I'll sell my properties in Washington and Idaho. My house there just valued in at a little under a million dollars. And move to either Italy, Bali, or the south of Spain. We haven't decided. Debating you is dead dog work. That's why I stopped. You don't listen and I'm not really interested in having a one sided conversation. I'm happy to debate you any time on any subject, religion or otherwise, But let's try NOT just cutting and pasting whatever logical fallacy from the master list fits your bias. If you'd ever been in a real debate before you'd know that you're not awarded points for just hollering out logical fallacies and copy and pasting the definitions. You have to actually make a salient counter point. Which you fail to do. Which is why no one likes any of your posts. It reminds of this atheist I used to see on T.V. who would only use logical fallacies to call out religious people and like your conversations they never went anywhere so I got bored and stopped watching. Logical fallacies are one of many many tools of a debate and are used to form cohesive counter arguments. My debate team didn't just stand there and yell red herring or argument by assertion. These simply underline the opponents argument, if made, and give an outline to build a structured counter argument. Their are a lot of tools to use in a debate. Didn't I tell you that if you can't explain something in it's simplest terms than you don't understand it. You should try the Feynman learning technique. Well, I imagine this will fall on deaf ears and you'll continue screaming into your computer about logical fallacies since that's the only tool you have to debate with. So, Yeah boring as usual.

 

[nPeace]

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.

The greatest man to walk the earth said, "The first will be last, and the last first." So as your response is last, I'll address your post first.

Do you have anything new, other than the old "Attack the one who disagrees with my worldview" tactic, and do you have anything new to replace that old boring song we hear so often, "Anyone who disagrees with my worldview (beliefs) is a fool"?

As for taking home the gold, perhaps that's your objective, but never even was a thought for me. Would never be either.
Rough thread? LOL
Actually no. How is it for you... Irritating?

It never ceases to amaze, and amuse me the way people on here alway use the fallacious ad hominem so liberally, as though it's second nature to them when anything is against their belief system.
Perhaps it's easier than actually presenting something you can't present.
However, no one takes home gold when they disqualify themselves from a debate.

AEI looks quite legit to me, although, I have not done any research on it. What's wrong with it, in your opinion? Do you have something against it? They probably think you are anti-AEI.

So you know though, I am not against the "consensus" on climate change. The consensus does not interest me, and is neither here nor there, since man can talk from now till they die, they will continue to doom themselves to failed decision making, and as the evidence shows - no consensus needed, but all can see - mankind is creating more and more problems for himself, and his fellow man... and scientist are not exempt.

There is good in science, and there is bad, and there is a consensus among most people that this is the case.

Do you think anyone who agrees with Michael Crichton is a fool, or maybe they read the article upside down... or perhaps they can't understand what they read?
These are things I wonder whenever someone like yourself makes a post like the one you put here.
What about Jorge Barrio, Ph.D.
Is he a fool too? Did he not read the article? Or maybe he is an AEI supporter who is pushing his anti-science anti-climate change based agenda... because he said, quote
I am quite certain that most of us have been - in one way or another - exposed to the concept (and consequences) of “consensus science.” In fact, scientific reviewers of journal articles or grant applications — typically in biomedical research — may use the term (e.g., “....it is the consensus in the field...”) often as a justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs.
I have always had a negative gut reaction to the concept of “consensus science.” But Michael Crichton explains it best when he said:

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 are relevant are 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.​

It is indeed hard to disagree with Mr. Crichton. The historical track record of scientific consensus is nothing but dismal. Many examples can be cited, but there are some classical ones. Unquote

Apparently you think that only one who can't think for themselves and form their own opinions, and do research, would say that the use and abuse of “consensus science” is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system... and that one of the "sacred pillars" of scientific edifice - peer review - has been under fire for some time now because it controls access to publications and funding, clearly highlighting the problem.

Only one who can't think for themselves and form their own opinions, and do research, would say it is their responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that... quoting Crichton again... “...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”.
Source

I guess Jorge is another agenda driven misfit?
Let's face it though Michael and Jorge are not the only ones, amd we are not talking a handful of persons.

Michael Schrage’s comment on politics and science (September 26) struck a raw nerve: and provoked an extended response from the president of the UK’s Royal Society. Lord Rees advocates that we should base policy on something called “the scientific consensus”, while acknowledging that such consensus may be provisional. But this proposal blurs the distinction between politics and science that Lord Rees wants to emphasise. Novelist Michael Crichton may have exaggerated when he wrote that “if it’s consensus, it’s not science, if it’s science, it’s not consensus”, but only a bit. Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one.
He went on to say, quote Science is a matter of evidence, not what a majority of scientists think. Unquote.
Oh wait. I did not read the article.

 

[nPeace]

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.


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?


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

"grudge against scientists"? Why would anyone have a grudge against scientists? Reminds me of the show "Kids say the "dumbest" things".
"don't like the fact that there is consensus on conclusions you don't agree with (evolution and climate change)"? LOL.
I understand scientists get a lot of things wrong based on their assumptions. That's your field, so if that's the way you like it, go for it.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Yup. You are consistent in making wrong assumptions and arriving at wrong conclusions.

Maybe this will help you with what I said before.
The buildings they built on sand was thought to be "solid foundation". So they built stories high, only to realize later... "Oh look! The building is leaning".

One can believe something and move forward on that belief, building on more beliefs.
After all, "science" is often based on beliefs of scientists.
Am I wrong? I'm all ears.

 

[infrabenji]

The greatest man to walk the earth said, "The first will be last, and the last first." So as your response is last, I'll address your post first.

Do you have anything new, other than the old "Attack the one who disagrees with my worldview" tactic, and do you have anything new to replace that old boring song we hear so often, "Anyone who disagrees with my worldview (beliefs) is a fool"?

As for taking home the gold, perhaps that's your objective, but never even was a thought for me. Would never be either.
Rough thread? LOL
Actually no. How is it for you... Irritating?

It never ceases to amaze, and amuse me the way people on here alway use the fallacious ad hominem so liberally, as though it's second nature to them when anything is against their belief system.
Perhaps it's easier than actually presenting something you can't present.
However, no one takes home gold when they disqualify themselves from a debate.

AEI looks quite legit to me, although, I have not done any research on it. What's wrong with it, in your opinion? Do you have something against it? They probably think you are anti-AEI.

So you know though, I am not against the "consensus" on climate change. The consensus does not interest me, and is neither here nor there, since man can talk from now till they die, they will continue to doom themselves to failed decision making, and as the evidence shows - no consensus needed, but all can see - mankind is creating more and more problems for himself, and his fellow man... and scientist are not exempt.

There is good in science, and there is bad, and there is a consensus among most people that this is the case.

Do you think anyone who agrees with Michael Crichton is a fool, or maybe they read the article upside down... or perhaps they can't understand what they read?
These are things I wonder whenever someone like yourself makes a post like the one you put here.
What about Jorge Barrio, Ph.D.
Is he a fool too? Did he not read the article? Or maybe he is an AEI supporter who is pushing his anti-science anti-climate change based agenda... because he said, quote
I am quite certain that most of us have been - in one way or another - exposed to the concept (and consequences) of “consensus science.” In fact, scientific reviewers of journal articles or grant applications — typically in biomedical research — may use the term (e.g., “....it is the consensus in the field...”) often as a justification for shutting down ideas not associated with their beliefs.
I have always had a negative gut reaction to the concept of “consensus science.” But Michael Crichton explains it best when he said:

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 are relevant are 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.​

It is indeed hard to disagree with Mr. Crichton. The historical track record of scientific consensus is nothing but dismal. Many examples can be cited, but there are some classical ones. Unquote

Apparently you think that only one who can't think for themselves and form their own opinions, and do research, would say that the use and abuse of “consensus science” is at least partially responsible for the current crisis in the scientific and medical peer review system... and that one of the "sacred pillars" of scientific edifice - peer review - has been under fire for some time now because it controls access to publications and funding, clearly highlighting the problem.

Only one who can't think for themselves and form their own opinions, and do research, would say it is their responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that... quoting Crichton again... “...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”.
Source

I guess Jorge is another agenda driven misfit?
Let's face it though Michael and Jorge are not the only ones, amd we are not talking a handful of persons.

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
Subscribe to read | Financial Times

Michael Schrage’s comment on politics and science (September 26) struck a raw nerve: and provoked an extended response from the president of the UK’s Royal Society. Lord Rees advocates that we should base policy on something called “the scientific consensus”, while acknowledging that such consensus may be provisional. But this proposal blurs the distinction between politics and science that Lord Rees wants to emphasise. Novelist Michael Crichton may have exaggerated when he wrote that “if it’s consensus, it’s not science, if it’s science, it’s not consensus”, but only a bit. Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one.
He went on to say, quote Science is a matter of evidence, not what a majority of scientists think. Unquote.
Oh wait. I did not read the article.

TL;DR Are you the guy who posted an article from a dark money lobbying group for anti climate change science? That was hilarious. Appeal to Michael Crichton. That's a new one. I don't care what you think the consensus of science is. I just thought it was hilarious you used an AEI (super anti science dark money lobby) article to make a claim about science. It's like me using Uncle Tom's Cabin to prove Jim Crow laws are a good thing. I just hope you didn't just go on a rant about logical fallacies. That seems to be one of the only tools people know how to use on this forum and I rarely see them used properly in terms of a debate. As you can see I use a lot of rhetorical devices in my arguments though I am familiar with logical fallacies having used both on the debate team in high school and college. Sorry, you wasted your time writing that novel. Even so, I hope you have a good day.

 

[nPeace]

TL;DR Are you the guy who posted an article from a dark money lobbying group for anti climate change science? That was hilarious. Appeal to Michael Crichton. That's a new one. I don't care what you think the consensus of science is. I just thought it was hilarious you used an AEI (super anti science dark money lobby) article to make a claim about science. It's like me using Uncle Tom's Cabin to prove Jim Crow laws are a good thing. I just hope you didn't just go on a rant about logical fallacies. That seems to be one of the only tools people know how to use on this forum and I rarely see them used properly in terms of a debate. As you can see I use a lot of rhetorical devices in my arguments though I am familiar with logical fallacies having used both on the debate team in high school and college. Sorry, you wasted your time writing that novel. Even so, I hope you have a good day.

I didn't waste my time... even though you did not read it. That's actually the reason for writing it. God shut the mouth of lions. He didn't think he wasted his time. The lions sure enjoy roaring.
Peace.

 

[Jose Fly]

"grudge against scientists"? Why would anyone have a grudge against scientists?

I explained....because they reach conclusions that contradict your religious beliefs (evolution). If anyone were to read all your posts here at RF, I seriously doubt they would come away thinking "Boy, nPeace sure does think highly of scientists!"

I understand scientists get a lot of things wrong based on their assumptions. That's your field, so if that's the way you like it, go for it.

Exhibit A.

What I don't understand is why you don't just own it. You regularly bash scientists and their work here ("assumptions"), but for some reason you also try and have it both ways by acting like you actually like science and scientists. Why not just own it? Are you ashamed to admit that you don't really have a positive view of science and scientists? You don't seem to have any trouble expressing other unpopular views, so what's different about this one?

 

[infrabenji]

I didn't waste my time... even though you did not read it. That's actually the reason for writing it. God shut the mouth of lions. He didn't think he wasted his time. The lions sure enjoy roaring.
Peace.

I don't mind reading a short post. A quip out of Daniel. Not a bad insult. I prefer the proverb "A lazy messenger is not short of insults". You see how I did that.

 

[nPeace]

I explained....because they reach conclusions that contradict your religious beliefs (evolution). If anyone were to read all your posts here at RF, I seriously doubt they would come away thinking "Boy, nPeace sure does think highly of scientists!"

LOL.

Exhibit A.

What I don't understand is why you don't just own it. You regularly bash scientists and their work here ("assumptions"), but for some reason you also try and have it both ways by acting like you actually like science and scientists. Why not just own it? Are you ashamed to admit that you don't really have a positive view of science and scientists? You don't seem to have any trouble expressing other unpopular views, so what's different about this one?

I don't admit to lies people tell Fly. Try that in court. Go at the witness with that after the judge warns you twice.

Your jury on the last occasion was hilarious. Your lawyer here is not very different. LOL.

 

[nPeace]

I don't mind reading a short post. A quip out of Daniel. Not a bad insult. I prefer the proverb "A lazy messenger is not short of insults". You see how I did that.

Yes, I found that on RF. Most don't like reading two lines... but they don't mind posting several.

 

[Jose Fly]

LOL.


I don't admit to lies people tell Fly. Try that in court. Go at the witness with that after the judge warns you twice.

Your jury on the last occasion was hilarious. Your lawyer here is not very different. LOL.

Well, it looks to me like you've shut down yet again and would rather this conversation end. So be it.

 

[Rise]

Lol TL;DR

Logical fallacy, failure to meet the burden of rejoinder.

Being unable or unwilling to offer a counter argument, your arguments stand refuted, and you have tacitly conceded the debate.

Debating you is dead dog work. That's why I stopped.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.
Making excuses for why you have conceded the debate doesn't change the fact that you have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder and therefore have conceded the debate.

I have 4 degrees and was on the debate team in Highschool and College. I do have an awesome life. I have an awesome job as a consultant that pays top dollar, I get to make my own hours, and I can either work at home or at my office. I'm only 40 and I'm se to retire in 7 years. My fiancé will only be 32 when we retire. Then I'll sell my properties in Washington and Idaho. My house there just valued in at a little under a million dollars. And move to either Italy, Bali, or the south of Spain. We haven't decided.

Logical fallacy, "my boat's bigger than yours".

Your claims about the superiority of your life are not relevant to supporting your claims, nor does it represent a valid logical counter argument in defense of your refuted arguments.

You don't listen and I'm not really interested in having a one sided conversation.

You have shown no error with my pointing out why your arguments were fallacious.
So, given that it is established that your arguments are fallacious, it raises the question:

Why do you feel entitled to have people listen to you when you can't form a logically coherent and valid argument?

Why do you feel entitled to spew unsupported opinions all over a page and have people treat them as though they are logically valid truth?

This is a debate forum - not an opinion forum.
If you aren't willing to support your claims with logical reasons and evidence then you can't throw a fit and start talking about the size of your boat just because people won't treat your unsupported opinion as though it's a logically proven fact.

I'm happy to debate you any time on any subject, religion or otherwise,

Except now, in this thread.

And except the other day, in another thread.

Which happens to be the only two times you've tried to debate me.

And both times you ended up quickly storming off whining about how big your boat is and therefore how much better your life is when you couldn't get away with using fallacies to argue with.

But let's try NOT just cutting and pasting whatever logical fallacy from the master list fits your bias. If you'd ever been in a real debate before you'd know that you're not awarded points for just hollering out logical fallacies and copy and pasting the definitions. You have to actually make a salient counter point. Which you fail to do.

...

Logical fallacies are one of many many tools of a debate and are used to form cohesive counter arguments. My debate team didn't just stand there and yell red herring or argument by assertion. These simply underline the opponents argument, if made, and give an outline to build a structured counter argument. Their are a lot of tools to use in a debate.

...

Well, I imagine this will fall on deaf ears and you'll continue screaming into your computer about logical fallacies since that's the only tool you have to debate with.

You have not shown that a single fallacy I pointed out you committed was in error.
Which would mean that almost all of your posts have been nothing but a string of fallacies.

If you never had a non-fallacious argument to start with then there's no counter-point that needs to be made. You never offered a valid argument against my position to start with.

There's no counter point to be made to an ad hominem fallacy other than to call it out for what it is and wait for you to try to offer a valid counter argument in it's stead.

But you don't want to make a valid argument in it's place. Instead you demand your baseless opinions be treated as facts and whine when you aren't allowed to use fallacies as arguments.

Which raises the question:
Why do you feel entitled to spew fallacies in an unending string and then demand others treat them as valid arguments?

Which is why no one likes any of your posts.

Logical fallacy, ad hominem.
Being unable to put up a valid counter argument, you have only personal attacks to fall back on.

It reminds of this atheist I used to see on T.V. who would only use logical fallacies to call out religious people and like your conversations they never went anywhere so I got bored and stopped watching.

...

So, Yeah boring as usual.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

Statements about your personal boredom do not prove your original claims nor refute any of my arguments.

Didn't I tell you that if you can't explain something in it's simplest terms than you don't understand it. You should try the Feynman learning technique.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.
Your statement has no demonstrated logical relevance to refuting any of my arguments nor supporting your original claims.

 

[Heyo]

Am I wrong? I'm all ears.

You are, as usual. Did you even read my post to the end?
Just explain your alternative to the scientific method and why it is better.