tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5021129427130660342..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Science vs Scientists: How many climate science deniers are evolution deniers?Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65538359684319783242014-02-02T16:37:43.405+11:002014-02-02T16:37:43.405+11:00Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy if th...Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy if that is the only evidence offered for a particular view. If, instead, the argument is <i>"A, because B, as supplied by C who as studied the topic"</i>, it is not a fallacy in any way whatsoever. It is simply support for the evidence presented as posed by the fact that 'C' has studied the topic in some depth. <br /><br />What I so often see, however, is 'skeptics' claiming "argument from authority" without in any fashion addressing the _evidence_ presented. That is a logical fallacy in that it does not address the actual argument. <br /><br />Note that in many cases <i>(such as in the mention of PZ Meyers)</i> one of the commentators may be referring to the whole of the literature, the '97%'. If referring to the corpus of literature, it's not necessary to re-prove everything, as noted in the EPA decision where the judge stated <i><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/science/earth/epa-emissions-rules-backed-by-court.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">“This is how science works,” they wrote. “The E.P.A. is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”</a></i>.KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68616988869389559002014-02-02T11:30:52.201+11:002014-02-02T11:30:52.201+11:00To clarify again: It is not "fallacy to cite ...<i>To clarify again: It is not "fallacy to cite the expert findings of experts". It is a fallacy to argue that the findings are necessarily correct because they are produced by experts.</i><br /><br />All you need is a coherent and robust scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position. And it is lacking. <br /><br />Good faith discussion proceeds from this point. It cannot ignore this point. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78541928489640233262014-02-02T11:13:12.218+11:002014-02-02T11:13:12.218+11:00Well, I couldn't resist looking at Myer's ...Well, I couldn't resist looking at Myer's blog.... and I don't think he's arguing from authority...he gives evidence and reasoning. But I'm not likely to pick a fight with him about cephalopod behavior either.checkitouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13162516454785980633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57627325765985777182014-02-02T10:29:39.189+11:002014-02-02T10:29:39.189+11:00:):)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69599862474754523882014-02-02T10:24:23.412+11:002014-02-02T10:24:23.412+11:00Like I said, although Greig uses logic fallacies a...<i>Like I said, although Greig uses logic fallacies all the time, logic itself is not his strong suit. I'd say he's got circular thinking down pat though. No, make that spiral thinking. </i><br /><br />I'd say that's <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion" rel="nofollow">Argument by assertion </a> :-)Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89946164528736324742014-02-02T10:14:56.346+11:002014-02-02T10:14:56.346+11:00Like I said, although Greig uses logic fallacies a...Like I said, although Greig uses logic fallacies all the time, logic itself is not his strong suit. I'd say he's got circular thinking down pat though. No, make that spiral thinking.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13775922073540199072014-02-02T10:10:02.253+11:002014-02-02T10:10:02.253+11:00Sou engages in argumentum ad absurdum.
To clarif...Sou engages in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" rel="nofollow"> argumentum ad absurdum</a>.<br /><br />To clarify again: It is not "fallacy to cite the expert findings of experts". It is a fallacy to argue that the findings are necessarily correct because they are produced by experts.Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79102166193579178792014-02-02T10:05:23.689+11:002014-02-02T10:05:23.689+11:00What I see is someone trying to argue that under a...What I see is someone trying to argue that under accepted norms of debate, climate change is a special case and not subject to Argumentum ab auctoritate .Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84577226633850357422014-02-02T10:00:34.434+11:002014-02-02T10:00:34.434+11:00It's not a fallacy to "rely on the expert...It's not a fallacy to "rely on the expertise of experts" but it's a fallacy to cite the expert findings of experts. Got it!<br /><br />BBD Greig's got all the logical fallacies down pat. He uses them all the time :DSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91659467404616043132014-02-02T09:26:25.594+11:002014-02-02T09:26:25.594+11:00Say you had a room full of doctors, and they all a...<i>Say you had a room full of doctors, and they all agreed that stomach ulcers are caused by stress?</i><br /><br />Ah, argument from false equivalence.<br /><br />A specific error in medicine does not equate with a general error in radiative physics, paleoclimatology and physical climatology. Besides, we'd need something to overturn the standard position(s) and there is nothing. No <i>deus ex helicobacter pylori.</i><br /><br />What I see is a rather flimsy attempt to deny the validity of scientific evidence while pretending not to do so. <br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28933392804139469562014-02-02T08:58:56.961+11:002014-02-02T08:58:56.961+11:00Wow. The stupid in this thread mirrors the origina...Wow. The stupid in this thread mirrors the original post.Choom Gangnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18651909330164651052014-02-02T08:54:04.067+11:002014-02-02T08:54:04.067+11:00BBD, I will quickly respond noting that Sou is not...BBD, I will quickly respond noting that Sou is not happy about this thread continuing.<br /><br />Obviously "reliance on the expertise of experts" is not a logical fallacy. <br /><br />However using a persons expertise as an argument that they are necessarily right is a logical fallacy.<br /><br />Say you had a room full of doctors, and they all agreed that stomach ulcers are caused by stress?Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40305751963437099122014-02-02T08:36:21.109+11:002014-02-02T08:36:21.109+11:00Greig
I think what he [Tom] was trying to say is t...Greig<br /><i>I think what he [Tom] was trying to say is that many who discuss climate science rest on the conclusions and opinions of climate scientists, because they are the authority. That is actually a logical fallacy</i><br /><br />So where do you stand in all this? Do you regard reliance on the expertise of experts as a logical fallacy? <br /><br />Say we have a room full of military test pilots. Do we defer to them as the experts on flying or not? <br /><br />Say we have a room full of climate scientists - ?<br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53057237436581336542014-02-02T08:19:21.179+11:002014-02-02T08:19:21.179+11:00All of which goes to show that Greig hasn't re...All of which goes to show that Greig hasn't realised why (as my 4 year old niece once said to her Gran'ma) we evolved with two eyes and ears but only one mouth - and usually use just one keyboard :(Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19425853372218889132014-02-02T08:01:01.269+11:002014-02-02T08:01:01.269+11:00Sou wrote: If PZ Myers reports what the scientis...Sou wrote: <i> If PZ Myers reports what the scientists find about evolution and climate science, then it's not fallacious.</i><br /><br />Yet if (as Tom suggests) the argument rests on the "authority of scientists", then it is based on an <a href="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/" rel="nofollow"> appeal to authority</a> which is a logical fallacy.<br /><br />And that's why Tom doesn't visit Myer's website any more.<br /><br />Clear now, or do we have to go around the block again?Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8006747382334276982014-02-02T07:37:06.418+11:002014-02-02T07:37:06.418+11:00Greig claimed that Tom was invoking the fallacious...Greig claimed that Tom was invoking the fallacious appeal to authority. But that's not what Tom wrote. Tom said:<br /><br /><i>his arguments on both evolution and climate were founded on the authority of the scientists</i><br /><br />If PZ Myers reports what the scientists find about evolution and climate science, then it's not fallacious.<br /><br />As is becoming usual with Greig, the discussion goes around and around in a spiral.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28794540253555391212014-02-02T07:25:01.364+11:002014-02-02T07:25:01.364+11:00I'm actually confused now. What *are* you sayi...<i>I'm actually confused now. What *are* you saying, Greig?</i><br /><br />Tom is saying he doesn't like Myer's website (which discusses climate science), because Myer evokes <a href="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/" rel="nofollow">appeal to authority</a>.<br /><br />Clear now?<br />Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75350604056482986922014-02-02T07:17:48.718+11:002014-02-02T07:17:48.718+11:00FrankD wote: Mistaken claims of "A ad A&quo...FrankD wote: <i> Mistaken claims of "A ad A" are ... actually a red flag of crank.</i><br /><br />Sou wrote: <i>And the first person to raise the issue of Appeal to Authority (A ad A) was Greig.</i><br /><br />Just to be clear, Sou, are you calling me a crank?<br />Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91327431132105993052014-02-02T06:54:28.346+11:002014-02-02T06:54:28.346+11:00Greig, earlier:
I think what he [Tom] was trying...Greig, earlier:<br /><br /><i> I think what he [Tom] was trying to say is that many who discuss climate science rest on the conclusions and opinions of climate scientists, because they are the authority. That is actually a logical fallacy</i><br /><br />I'm actually confused now. What *are* you saying, Greig?BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17792473877236172502014-02-02T06:35:12.060+11:002014-02-02T06:35:12.060+11:00And the first person to raise the issue of Appeal ...<i> And the first person to raise the issue of Appeal to Authority (A ad A) was Greig. </i><br /><br />No, the first person to raise it was Tom when he explained that he doesn't go to a website because "arguments ... were founded on the authority of the scientists – not on the sciences".<br /><br />This was misunderstood by Sou, I merely provided some explanation for Tom's reasoning.<br /><br />And to the others in this thread so determined to throw the baby out with the bathwater: There is nothing in the "argument from authority" fallacy which disallows experts from arguing their case, and it doesn't make them wrong, and I am not suggesting any such thing.Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51925294691601137882014-02-02T05:07:46.704+11:002014-02-02T05:07:46.704+11:00After RACookPE1978's rants about the "pre...After <a href="http://archive.is/5H5Ss" rel="nofollow">RACookPE1978's rants</a> about the "preferred murder weapons of the CAGW crowd" I wouldn't be surprised, but do you have an (archived) link of his statements on evolution?Dumb Scientisthttp://dumbscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44710595446409215802014-02-02T04:04:59.866+11:002014-02-02T04:04:59.866+11:00FrankD observes, correctly:
The opinion of an aut...FrankD observes, correctly:<br /><br /><i>The opinion of an authority in their domain of expertise is a perfectly legitimate *argument*.</i><br /><br />Claiming that this is a logical fallacy is one of the finest examples of motivated "reasoning" I've seen for a while. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45238962919493348562014-02-02T02:24:06.093+11:002014-02-02T02:24:06.093+11:00Another aspect of this rhetorical device calculate...Another aspect of this rhetorical device calculated to demean established knowledge - Thee Argument From Authority. <br /><br />Is that deniers use it without ever becoming acquainted with the substance of the science that's gone into some particular argument, be it evolution or global warming. In fact, they encourage one to ignore and remain oblivious to the evidence behind the science.<br /><br />Thus remaining ignorant of the basis for said "argument from authority"<br />~ ~ ~<br /><br />But, I guess that's what faith and dogma are all about, ignore the evidence -- trust only what's in your own head. <br />Whereas scientists are a skeptical bunch always looking over each others shoulders - examining and arguing about each others work. A beautiful example of a system that appreciates that we need each other to keep ourselves honest.<br /><br />PS. One directional skepticism equals denial !citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51892422526873494302014-02-02T01:36:43.018+11:002014-02-02T01:36:43.018+11:00Seeing no-one called Tom a "crank" I thi...Seeing no-one called Tom a "crank" I think Greig was deflecting. <br /><br />Apart from Greig, the only person who used the word "crank" was FrankD who wrote:<br /><br /><i>Mistaken claims of "A ad A" are like the dreaded "ad hominem" when the poster simply means "insult", IMO - superficially reasonable, but actually a red flag of crank.</i><br /><br />And the first person to raise the issue of Appeal to Authority (A ad A) was Greig.<br /><br />:DSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47358177491179461772014-02-02T00:25:53.357+11:002014-02-02T00:25:53.357+11:00wtf are you talking about Greig? No one said Tom G...wtf are you talking about Greig? No one said Tom G doesn't have the righ to not view a given website. That's just completely stupid to claim. "Don't tread on me" is the last refuge of the desperate!Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.com