Argumentum ad populum

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course you're right. Reality doesn't care one whit what popular opinion is and is just sitting around patiently for the Peers to decide its fate.

No.

Reality is what it is and experts in specific field try to find out what that reality is through a standardized process of inquiry known as the scientific method.

Scientific concensus is a term noting wide agreement among experts of a specific fields concerning a specific subject within that field. Agreement concerning data analysis, experiments, testing results, etc.

If you can't understand the difference between that and mere popular opinion, to the point that you feel a need to resort to silly sarcasm, then I can't really help you.

I can only advice you to go inform yourself on the scientific method and scientific jargon.

Oh, why don't you pick one experiment that necessarily shows evolution actually exists

Sure.

It's not really "one" experiment though. It's a web-app:

iTOL: Interactive Tree Of Life

It's basically a webview build upon a ginormous database of fully sequenced genomes.
An automated process analyses said genomes, compares them and plots found matches on a graph.
What follows is a phylogenetic tree. Or a family tree, if you wish.

This software is only possible because species share ancestors.
You wouldn't not be able to construct family trees from DNA, if this DNA didn't fall into such a nested hierarchy.

If this pattern didn't exist in genetics, then evolution would be falsified.
Other then evolution, there isn't a single idea concerning origins that predicts such a pattern, except an idea where it says something like "aliens created us but did it in such a way that it just looks as if we evolved" - which would be very deceptive. And very much a belief like Last Thursdayism.

as They say it does instead of burying us in things that don't support Darwin's contention?

Lot's of things don't support Darwin's contention. It's been a while, after all, since the dude came up with natural selection. These a couple centuries worth of biology research that's happened since then.
Darwin didn't even know about DNA (although his theory did predict something like it).

 

[Polymath257]

Some of them (like me) are also skeptical about the existence of dinosaurs. Basically, before Darwin's theories nobody actually seemed to have much stock in the notion that there are dinosaurs. Now every school kid KNOWS there are dinosaurs. Once again, scientists have a consensus, and those who don't, tend to lose their jobs.

Except that is just false. The first dinosaur bone was found in 1677 but misidentified as a giant human. Others were found in the 1810's and 1820's, well before Darwin did his work.

And other cultures *do* have records of finding these bones. There is a story in the writings of Herodotus where the Egyptians took him to a 'nest for Phoenix', but the actual description matches that of a dinosaur nest.

The First Dinosaur Fossil Was Named Before We Had A Word For Dinosaurs

But yes, after we learned a bit about geology (so we had an idea how old things were), and did more road construction (blasting through mountains tends to reveal things that are buried), the discovery of dinosaur (and other types of ancient life) remains was much more common.

 

[ecco]

In 1536, the French explorer
Jacques Cartier
, exploring the
St. Lawrence River
, used the local natives' knowledge to save his men who were dying of scurvy. He boiled the needles of the
arbor vitae
tree to make a tea that was later shown to contain 50 mg of vitamin C per 100 grams.
[151][152]​

the above clip comes from Wiki

it demonstrates common remedy known by natives

such remedy rejected by the knowledgeable as witch doctor practice

vitamin C was not discovered by science for a ….long......long .....time

Did the local natives say the reason that the boiled needles warded off scurvy was because the needles contained vitamin C? No. The local natives had evidence from thousands of years of trial and error and observation.

Did the explorers believe the reason that lemons warded off scurvy was because lemons contained vitamin C? No. The explorers had evidence from thousands of years of trial and error and observation.

So, what was the point you were trying to make?

 

[ecco]

the idea of survival of the fittest (which is responsible for unholy eugenics movements, including the Nazi murder of Jews).

You need to study history.

LUTHER AND HITLER
Martin Luther (1483-1546) has long been famous for founding the Protestant Reformation and the Lutheran church. For his defiance of Catholic supremacy, Luther is often upheld as a defender of free speech and religious tolerance. Few ideas could be further from the truth.

What Luther advocated was the replacement of Catholic religious persecution and oppression with Protestant religious persecution and oppression. He demanded strict obedience to temporal authorities, and he preached that heretics be executed. These views very specifically included other Christians, such as Baptists.

Luther was also consumed by a hatred for the Jews, as many of the quotes below make clear. Indeed, prior to the horror of Kristallnacht in 1938 it could be said that Hitler's views on the Jews were actually more moderate than Luther's. In fact Kristallnacht took place on Luther's birthday. Hitler and the Nazis repeatedly presented Luther as a role model. It was Luther, not Hitler, who first called for burning down all the synagogues of Germany and herding the Jews into slave labor concentration camps.

 

[SkepticThinker]

TRANSLATION:

'Ooops - I've been caught again... what shall I do??? I cannot admit that I am just repeating some stuff I read on an alt-health propaganda site... golly! I know - I'll just pretend that I am above it all!'



So, you DON'T even know what "vitamin B17" is...

Alright, well since you accept that I belong on a pedestal compared to you:

Amygdalin: Safe for Cancer Treatment?

"How It Works
The way your intestines break it down makes cyanide, which supposedly kills harmful cancer cells.

Some people have also suggested that it teams up with enzymes in cancercells to destroy them.

Others say the cancer was caused because you didn't have enough "vitamin B17." But there's no proof that amygdalin acts like a vitamin in your body or that you even need it. Calling it a vitamin is a way to get around regulations for drugs."​

Ok, so since WebMD gets a bad rap sometimes, how about this:


https://www.cancernetwork.com/integrative-oncology/amygdalin-vitamin-b17

"A substantial number of cancer patients turn to unconventional agents used as anticancer therapies. However, “alternative cures” are unproved and may be harmful. They are not supported by clinical research and they can jeopardize patients’ lives, especially when patients delay needed care. Amygdalin, promoted as a popular alternative cancer cure for over 40 years, is used by many cancer patients. No solid data supports its effectiveness. In addition, cyanide toxicity and contaminated products have been reported.

Despite these concerns, many websites promote amygdalin as a viable cancer treatment. "​

Still not enough? How about this popular 'health guru':

Do You Need Vitamin B17? | Supplements | Andrew Weil, M.D.

"There is no vitamin B17. The term is inaccurately applied to laetrile, a discredited cancer drug, and amygdalin, the natural substance from which laetrile is made. Because the FDA has not approved laetrile for any use in the U.S., its makers decided to call it vitamin B17. It has none of the characteristics of the 13 vitamins our bodies need for normal growth and development.

Amygdalin occurs in the seeds of apricots, peaches, and almonds. It can release cyanide when eaten, making it potentially toxic. Because of the lack of evidence for laetrile’s effectiveness plus the risk of serious side effects from cyanide poisoning caused by taking it orally, the FDA and the European Commission have banned its use. Although you can buy laetrile online, you should be aware that products may come from questionable sources and could be contaminated."​

My uncle tried this to cure his colon cancer. His tumour continued growing. He continued using it anyway, because his naturopath told him the tumour would get bigger before it got smaller. It never got smaller. He ended up having to seek actual medical attention as his health deteriorated; underwent surgery to remove the tumour along with chemo treatments and is now in remission, no thanks to B17 shots.

 

[ecco]

Some of them (like me) are also skeptical about the existence of dinosaurs. Basically, before Darwin's theories nobody actually seemed to have much stock in the notion that there are dinosaurs.

Yep folks, dinosaurs never existed. They are all part of the World Wide Evil Masonic Conspiracy...

The Atlantean Conspiracy: Dinosaur Hoax - Dinosaurs Never Existed!
National Geographic and the Ice Age movies were produced by Mason Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and 20th Century Fox. The Masonic production company Universal Studios created Jurassic Park and The Land Before Time. They are owned by Comcast, whose main shareholders are Masons JP Morgan and the Rothschilds. Discovery Channel which features many dinosaur documentaries is also financially advised by N M Rothschild and Sons Limited.

 

[viole]

100,000,000 surgeons - No blood transfusion. You die.
1 surgeon - No blood - No problem.

Went with the one surgeon - alive, and well.

And was what the rationale that led you to this lucky outcome?
Or unlucky, depending on your hurry to meet Jesus.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Samantha Rinne]

And... out comes the general consensus to tell me off. Sane as if I'd made the claim against the round Earth, which Christians technically could also declare an illusion.

I can tell the religious denominations of most of these nice folk. A Vestigial Mote hangs around NonTheistic Chat, Tagliatelli Monster (sp?) is a reference to the spaghetti monster, and of course sooda.

God created millions of dinosaur fossils just to trick you.

(I think another of you guys also said this of scientists, who do it for an entirely different reason. Money. These "rare" fossils basically print money for them)

There aren't millions of dinosaur fossils. The average museum has about four fossils, and I'm talking tooth-sized fragments, they "reconstruct" entire species from extrapolation. Said bones never see the light of day because they are too valuable. So they show these really old bones only for carbon dating (which because they are petrified, are probably lacking in genetic matter, begging the question, "what is the difference between these and old rocks?" ) while most of what the public sees is plaster casting. Said fossils, when they are real animals, are often not dinosaue heads at all but parts of crocodiles or actually the head of a fish. And i will bet that carbon dating suddenly turns inaccurate until the testers get a cut.

Barnum says that there is a sucker born every minute. So if I'm trying to fool you, what exactly is my gain? Nothing. I'm poor. What about these esteemed archaeologists? Money from evolutionary scientists for propping up their theory. Money from sales to collectors, or to museums. Money for museums when suddenly their dinosaur exhibit draws alot of guests. This is a bearded lady, folks!

As for people mocking the article, such an article should always be taken with a grain (or bag) of salt. But if it leads you to question what you're sure you know before, perhaps that deserves to be questioned. The article makes some definite claims I don't agree with but... (1) why do scientists that don't seem to believe in dinosaurs suddenly lose their credentials and funding? If it's a matter of them being insane, that's really nobody's business. And there are things far more insane, like belief in orgones. That guy seemed to do okay. (2) New stars are nearly always discovered by amateurs who have more spare time and less bureaucracy to deal with. So then, why do no plumbers, construction types, or farmers ever come across bones? It's basically only paleontologists and people they advise where to dig, and only in dig sites. (3) We've already seen frauds like the famed Archaeopteryx fossil which turned out to be a fake. And the first thing anyone in the business learns is how to put together a plaster cast.

These three are nagging questions that basically made me throw out everything I thought. And no, I don't care if eight of you gang up on me. Unless you answer such discrepancies.

Yes, there are old bones. But people thought narwhal tusks were unicorn horns, and you'd better bet someone sold them as such. Genuine unicorn horn! Get your unicorn horn!

 

[Samantha Rinne]

For the record what orgones are. The original guy (Wilhelm Reich) believed that the sky was blue from ppl masturbating.

Orgone energy - RationalWiki

Pretty sure if you decide not to believe in dinosaur fossils after seeing a few hoaxes, you are probably still doing better than this guy.

 

[sooda]

And... out comes the general consensus to tell me off. Sane as if I'd made the claim against the round Earth, which Christians technically could also declare an illusion.

I can tell the religious denominations of most of these nice folk. A Vestigial Mote hangs around NonTheistic Chat, Tagliatelli Monster (sp?) is a reference to the spaghetti monster, and of course sooda.



(I think another of you guys also said this of scientists, who do it for an entirely different reason. Money. These "rare" fossils basically print money for them)

There aren't millions of dinosaur fossils. The average museum has about four fossils, and I'm talking tooth-sized fragments, they "reconstruct" entire species from extrapolation. Said bones never see the light of day because they are too valuable. So they show these really old bones only for carbon dating (which because they are petrified, are probably lacking in genetic matter, begging the question, "what is the difference between these and old rocks?" ) while most of what the public sees is plaster casting. Said fossils, when they are real animals, are often not dinosaue heads at all but parts of crocodiles or actually the head of a fish. And i will bet that carbon dating suddenly turns inaccurate until the testers get a cut.

Barnum says that there is a sucker born every minute. So if I'm trying to fool you, what exactly is my gain? Nothing. I'm poor. What about these esteemed archaeologists? Money from evolutionary scientists for propping up their theory. Money from sales to collectors, or to museums. Money for museums when suddenly their dinosaur exhibit draws alot of guests. This is a bearded lady, folks!

As for people mocking the article, such an article should always be taken with a grain (or bag) of salt. But if it leads you to question what you're sure you know before, perhaps that deserves to be questioned. The article makes some definite claims I don't agree with but... (1) why do scientists that don't seem to believe in dinosaurs suddenly lose their credentials and funding? If it's a matter of them being insane, that's really nobody's business. And there are things far more insane, like belief in orgones. That guy seemed to do okay. (2) New stars are nearly always discovered by amateurs who have more spare time and less bureaucracy to deal with. So then, why do no plumbers, construction types, or farmers ever come across bones? It's basically only paleontologists and people they advise where to dig, and only in dig sites. (3) We've already seen frauds like the famed Archaeopteryx fossil which turned out to be a fake. And the first thing anyone in the business learns is how to put together a plaster cast.

These three are nagging questions that basically made me throw out everything I thought. And no, I don't care if eight of you gang up on me. Unless you answer such discrepancies.

Yes, there are old bones. But people thought narwhal tusks were unicorn horns, and you'd better bet someone sold them as such. Genuine unicorn horn! Get your unicorn horn!

And... out comes the general consensus to tell me off. Sane as if I'd made the claim against the round Earth, which Christians technically could also declare an illusion.

I can tell the religious denominations of most of these nice folk. A Vestigial Mote hangs around NonTheistic Chat, Tagliatelli Monster (sp?) is a reference to the spaghetti monster, and of course sooda.



(I think another of you guys also said this of scientists, who do it for an entirely different reason. Money. These "rare" fossils basically print money for them)

There aren't millions of dinosaur fossils. The average museum has about four fossils, and I'm talking tooth-sized fragments, they "reconstruct" entire species from extrapolation. Said bones never see the light of day because they are too valuable. So they show these really old bones only for carbon dating (which because they are petrified, are probably lacking in genetic matter, begging the question, "what is the difference between these and old rocks?" ) while most of what the public sees is plaster casting. Said fossils, when they are real animals, are often not dinosaue heads at all but parts of crocodiles or actually the head of a fish. And i will bet that carbon dating suddenly turns inaccurate until the testers get a cut.

Barnum says that there is a sucker born every minute. So if I'm trying to fool you, what exactly is my gain? Nothing. I'm poor. What about these esteemed archaeologists? Money from evolutionary scientists for propping up their theory. Money from sales to collectors, or to museums. Money for museums when suddenly their dinosaur exhibit draws alot of guests. This is a bearded lady, folks!

As for people mocking the article, such an article should always be taken with a grain (or bag) of salt. But if it leads you to question what you're sure you know before, perhaps that deserves to be questioned. The article makes some definite claims I don't agree with but... (1) why do scientists that don't seem to believe in dinosaurs suddenly lose their credentials and funding? If it's a matter of them being insane, that's really nobody's business. And there are things far more insane, like belief in orgones. That guy seemed to do okay. (2) New stars are nearly always discovered by amateurs who have more spare time and less bureaucracy to deal with. So then, why do no plumbers, construction types, or farmers ever come across bones? It's basically only paleontologists and people they advise where to dig, and only in dig sites. (3) We've already seen frauds like the famed Archaeopteryx fossil which turned out to be a fake. And the first thing anyone in the business learns is how to put together a plaster cast.

These three are nagging questions that basically made me throw out everything I thought. And no, I don't care if eight of you gang up on me. Unless you answer such discrepancies.

Yes, there are old bones. But people thought narwhal tusks were unicorn horns, and you'd better bet someone sold them as such. Genuine unicorn horn! Get your unicorn horn!

You ever been to the Big Bend or anywhere? There are thousands of dinosaur fossils all over the world.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

It's not argued that sound scientific proclamations come from consensus except perhaps by some of the anti-science contingent. Sound science comes from the scientific method. Scientific consensus is merely a poll of what each qualified scientist active in the field has come to believe independently by examining the evidence.

Evolution theory is not beyond question.

Evolutionary theory has been confirmed by it's empirical adequacy. It works. It can be used to make successful predictions about what might and what cannot be found reality and has been applied to improve the human condition.

Well let's assume that God did it. Several lines of investigation arrives at the same conclusion. Do you object?

If you assume that God did it a priori, it is not science. It becomes pseudoscience as with the ID movement. Your evidence needs to point to a supernatural explanation more than a natural one to constitute evidence for a god.

I'm merely pointing out flaws in the methodology of Look and See Science.

Look and see is what science is. Think about what evidence is. It is that which is evident and is interpreted for significance. Contrast that with religion.

What observable change in life is not sudden? What experiment has shown a gradual change?

Did you have children. Are they different from you? If so, there was transgenerational genotypic and phenotypic change.

Are your children radically different from you? Are they also human. Are they male or female? Do they also have four limbs, two eyes, hair, etc.? If so, the change was modest - gradual.

In other words Look and See Science is sufficient for extrapolation and interpolation. Who needs no stinkin' experiment?

Yes, look and see is often sufficient. Sometimes an experiment precedes the look and see part. We look and see the results. Sometimes the experiment has been done by nature and one merely looks and sees the result, as through a telescope.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And... out comes the general consensus to tell me off. Sane as if I'd made the claim against the round Earth, which Christians technically could also declare an illusion.

I can tell the religious denominations of most of these nice folk. A Vestigial Mote hangs around NonTheistic Chat, Tagliatelli Monster (sp?) is a reference to the spaghetti monster, and of course sooda.



(I think another of you guys also said this of scientists, who do it for an entirely different reason. Money. These "rare" fossils basically print money for them)

There aren't millions of dinosaur fossils. The average museum has about four fossils, and I'm talking tooth-sized fragments, they "reconstruct" entire species from extrapolation. Said bones never see the light of day because they are too valuable. So they show these really old bones only for carbon dating (which because they are petrified, are probably lacking in genetic matter, begging the question, "what is the difference between these and old rocks?" ) while most of what the public sees is plaster casting. Said fossils, when they are real animals, are often not dinosaue heads at all but parts of crocodiles or actually the head of a fish. And i will bet that carbon dating suddenly turns inaccurate until the testers get a cut.

Barnum says that there is a sucker born every minute. So if I'm trying to fool you, what exactly is my gain? Nothing. I'm poor. What about these esteemed archaeologists? Money from evolutionary scientists for propping up their theory. Money from sales to collectors, or to museums. Money for museums when suddenly their dinosaur exhibit draws alot of guests. This is a bearded lady, folks!

As for people mocking the article, such an article should always be taken with a grain (or bag) of salt. But if it leads you to question what you're sure you know before, perhaps that deserves to be questioned. The article makes some definite claims I don't agree with but... (1) why do scientists that don't seem to believe in dinosaurs suddenly lose their credentials and funding? If it's a matter of them being insane, that's really nobody's business. And there are things far more insane, like belief in orgones. That guy seemed to do okay. (2) New stars are nearly always discovered by amateurs who have more spare time and less bureaucracy to deal with. So then, why do no plumbers, construction types, or farmers ever come across bones? It's basically only paleontologists and people they advise where to dig, and only in dig sites. (3) We've already seen frauds like the famed Archaeopteryx fossil which turned out to be a fake. And the first thing anyone in the business learns is how to put together a plaster cast.

These three are nagging questions that basically made me throw out everything I thought. And no, I don't care if eight of you gang up on me. Unless you answer such discrepancies.

Yes, there are old bones. But people thought narwhal tusks were unicorn horns, and you'd better bet someone sold them as such. Genuine unicorn horn! Get your unicorn horn!

It looks like you've bought into some strange conspiracy theory.
I'm sorry to tell you, but you are just wrong about most things you've said above.

Here is some accurate information, to help clear things up for you:

CC351: Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil
Have any fossilized whole skulls of dinosaurs ever been found?
Why Today is the Golden Age for Dinosaur Discoveries
Where Are the Best Places To Find Dinosaur Fossils?
Interactive map of every dinosaur fossil found on Earth | Daily Mail Online
Mounting a skeleton: bones or casts?
https://museumoftherockies.org/uplo...s/Background_Info-Process_of_Paleontology.pdf

 

[sooda]

It looks like you've bought into some strange conspiracy theory.
I'm sorry to tell you, but you are just wrong about most things you've said above.

Here is some accurate information, to help clear things up for you:

CC351: Archaeopteryx is a fake.
Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil
Have any fossilized whole skulls of dinosaurs ever been found?
Why Today is the Golden Age for Dinosaur Discoveries
Where Are the Best Places To Find Dinosaur Fossils?
Interactive map of every dinosaur fossil found on Earth | Daily Mail Online
Mounting a skeleton: bones or casts?
https://museumoftherockies.org/uplo...s/Background_Info-Process_of_Paleontology.pdf

Well done... but she's hopeless. Her religion forbids education or thinking.

 

[ecco]

Barnum says that there is a sucker born every minute. So if I'm trying to fool you, what exactly is my gain?

I for one don't think you are trying to fool anyone. I for one am pretty sure that you actually believe what you write. You are not Barnum. You are like the people who believed Barnum. Someone told you a story that dinosaurs are all fake and you believed it because it was in accord with some of your other (YEC Creationist?) beliefs.

I guess you believe someone made this pile of bones and buried it so that his buddies could find it.

It's all just a vast conspiracy, isn't it?

 

[ecco]

The Atlantean Conspiracy: Dinosaur Hoax - Dinosaurs Never Existed!

As for people mocking the article, such an article should always be taken with a grain (or bag) of salt. But if it leads you to question what you're sure you know before, perhaps that deserves to be questioned. The article makes some definite claims I don't agree with but... (1) why do scientists that don't seem to believe in dinosaurs suddenly lose their credentials and funding?

Is the above the article your are talking about? Where in that article does it show that "scientists that don't seem to believe in dinosaurs suddenly lose their credentials and funding"?

You do know that that is along the same line of "argument" that YEC Creationists make - loss of funding etc.

 

[cladking]

Look and see is what science is. Think about what evidence is. It is that which is evident and is interpreted for significance. Contrast that with religion.

No! You are very very mistaken.

Science is observation > experiment because the inventors of science knew everyone saw what they already believed before they ever looked.

Outside of experiment there is no science at all.

Outside of metaphysics nobody can even know what he knows.

Look and See Science skips everything that is science (observation, experiment, metaphysics). Look and See Science is what Peers have done for over a century now and this is why we are so wrong about so many many things.

Surgeons used to not wash their hands and Einstein was rejected initially.

 

[cladking]

No.

Reality is what it is and experts in specific field try to find out what that reality is through a standardized process of inquiry known as the scientific method.

They have added the vote of Peers to the scientific method.

Much science has become nonsense.

Lot's of things don't support Darwin's contention. It's been a while, after all, since the dude came up with natural selection. These a couple centuries worth of biology research that's happened since then.
Darwin didn't even know about DNA (although his theory did predict something like it).

I see a sign up page and no experimental support at all for gradual change and survival of the fittest.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Thief]

Did the local natives say the reason that the boiled needles warded off scurvy was because the needles contained vitamin C? No. The local natives had evidence from thousands of years of trial and error and observation.

Did the explorers believe the reason that lemons warded off scurvy was because lemons contained vitamin C? No. The explorers had evidence from thousands of years of trial and error and observation.

So, what was the point you were trying to make?

the point was obvious.....

 

[ecco]

the point was obvious.....

Obviously not.

 

[nPeace]

I know the speech, but you apparently didn't understand what I said. While Crichton is "technically correct," that there is no such thing as "consensus science," nobody here is claiming that there is. What we are saying is that a lot of independent researchers have looked at the "reproducible results" and agreed. That is a consensus, but with a different meaning than the one Crichton is talking about.

Consider this example, from the speech: "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."

The "consensus" of the early deniers was not based at all on the work that Semmelweiss had done, and therefore it was invalid and had nothing whatever to say about the science behind his sanitary techniques (and the measured reductions in puerperal fever that he recorded). And what was the reason for the agreement at the start of the twentieth century? They repeated the tests, measured the results, and realized he was right.

I probably don't understand what you are saying, because I don't know what you are trying to say.

Why not just make things easy for me, and explain how what you are saying, is different to what Mr. Crichton is saying, or how he is not referring to what you are saying..

You can start with this quote...
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.

Even better, can you add how he is right, and yet not right?

Perhaps there is a bias against Jews.
Dan Shechtman - Wikipedia

Well, since the OP was yours, I certainly can't tell you what the point you were trying to raise is.

Okay, so you don't know what the point of the OP is.
I wonder why it's not clear. I see you are a humanist.
I'm not going to say that is responsible, but we know that oftentimes people tend to create arguments even against something they agree with, simply because they don't want to agree with the person.

However, you started by saying arguing that the fact that "many scientists agree that...whatever" is not a valid argument. By itself, that might be correct, unless one goes on to ask whether those "scientists" are actually involved in the relevant area of science, and are doing work on the matter in question. That is the whole point of citation among scholars and scientists after all...to cite the actual work of other, rather than to just say "I agree."

Ah. So it's the case then? You do agree, but you want to create something so that you can disagree with the poster?

So then it's not that you don't get the point. You do, but let's find something to disagree on.
Okay, so since we are here, please now explain how by quoting Michael Crichton, the point somehow is lost, or out of focus.

But how many times have heard the same argument from the religious side of the world, you know, "2 billion Christians can't be wrong!" Well, why can't they? What are they studying? What is the source of their belief? And I don't think you'll like my answer, because my answer is that they are all working entirely on "consensus religion." They are taking the written words of mere humans who made claims, and trying to understand what it was they were thinking about. But there has never, ever been a single piece of "reproducible result" that any theologian since the first century CE can use to say, "I've shown this to be correct."

And so I contend that religion is itself the single greatest example of "argument ad populum" that you will ever find.

It does not matter to me who uses the fallacies - whether Eskimo, or Hermit. Saying that one group does it, does not excuse the other.
All are guilty, isn't that so?
So I fail to see what that has to do with the OP.
If you heard me use it, then it would make a valid argument, but that is not the case.