....of Ph.D.s who do not appear to have darkened the door of a logic class? Here you go: notice that the main point made by global warming advocates is "consensus." In informal logic, that's the fallacy of "appeal to authority", as well as what we learned as the "bandwagon effect" in detecting propaganda.
On another note, here are some toys that I don't want my kids to have. Sorry, but this comes perilously close to blasphemy, IMO.
Know Your Lifts: The Romanian Deadlift (RDL)
-
In the Know Your Lifts series, we’ve covered the high-bar back squat, the
low-bar squat, the power jerk and split jerk, and the overhead press. It’s
been...
16 hours ago
7 comments:
...not being trained in logic, i've got to say...
sorry man, it doesn't make sense to me. That article seems to be saying that 'we scientists mostly all believe this, in opposition to the few that don't'. And, therefore, that is most likely the explanation of what's happening.
Nope, consensus just proves that people agree on something, not that there is evidence. Moreover, the consensus is merely among those receiving government grants to prove this--it's not even really a consensus, to be honest.
To draw a picture, you could get together with Mercy, JT, CDP, and others and agree that I was a pregnant purple platypus. To get evidence for that position, however, you might do well to bring your new camera.
okay, I understand that...but I assumed (and there's a big word) that this was essentially a summary of the findings: we've all (eminent scientists each) got findings, backing this viewpoint up, in our respective papers. And, when we get together, they match; i.e., a consensus. Somewhat similar to the LXX fable, only this is 'real'. If all these people believe what they believe, backed by their research, then it seems reasonable to determine that theirs is the correct (or closest to correct) assumption.
Unless you're saying that their stance is, essentially, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain": they've done no research, or it's all very questionable, and they're putting up a false front of unity.
Shawn, you can assume all sorts of things when people say "just trust us, we're the experts." However, you actually know only one thing; that they haven't provided you with any evidence for their position.
That alone makes such a statement a logical fallacy, and the use of such a fallacy indicates that the user has a bit of difficulty with logic.
While it certainly doesn't prove he's wrong, it does tell you that you need to take his other statements with a grain of salt.
Make sense?
let's put it this way. I understand that a simple consensus does not make a thing factual. I understood this particular article as being (taking your example) an after-the-fact short form discussion of the findings. Mercy, JT, CDP and I got together, reviewed my photographs of your pregnant purple platypus self, interviewed co-workers, documented other existing cases of platy...puses? pii? in the minnesota landscape, have confirmed that your home resembles a typical platypus domicile, etc.
We then come together, present our findings to each other, agree that you most likely ARE a platypus, present our white papers to the scientific community, and issue relatively simplistic (from our point of view, because you can't say everything we discovered in a simple blurb that we give to the papers) statements to the press, stating that "we all agree, bubba is a purple platypus".
In that situation, we've agreed that this is the best possible situation, and we HAVE THE DATA to back it up, but we're not going to give every scrap of data in every instance that someone asks about it.
sorry, last paragraph first sentence should read: "we've agreed that this is the best possible solution"
Shawn, agreed, but the simple fact is that if you ask someone about why Newtonian mechanics works, they will not start with "consensus," but rather with examples like ballistics, satellites and planetary orbits, dropping a feather and a hammer on the moon, and so on.
In the same way, if you & JT et al got together to prove I was a pregnant purple platypus, you'd lead with pictures of me, not "consensus."
Leading with "consensus" should generally be our first hint that the evidence is not that strong.
Post a Comment