If Consensus among scientists were right, then...

Post Reply New Topic

If Consensus among scientists were right, then the Sun revolved around the Earth until the days of Kepler and Newton.

If Consensus among scientists were right, then the universe was composed of four elements (Earth, Water, Wind, Fire) until the days of Robert Boyle.

If Consensus among scientists were right, then spontaneous generation was occurring until the days of Redi and Pasteur.

If Consensus among scientists were right, then it was physically impossible to enter Space until the days of Von Braun.

If Consensus among scientists were right, then it was physically impossible to have a heavier than air machine fly until the days of the Wright Brothers.

If Consensus among scientists were right, then anything broadly accepted or perceived as being PC among scientists in an era is actually true for that time.


Aside from mockery of me, does anyone have any real thoughts about the validity of consensus among scientists in an era as compared to the nature of reality?

If Consensus among scientists were right, then God existed back when most scientists were religious.

The statement can have a true conclusion with the antecedent being either true or false:

If Consensus among scientists were right, then centripetal force is required for circular motion.

If experiment based science is right, then centripetal force is required for circular motion.

Etcetera.

Affirming the consequent is invalid, but denying the consequent is valid.

Scientists suffer from the peculiar disability of admitting that new facts can change their views. Luckily, religious people are made of sterner stuff.

That's not it. What it is, however, is that scientists are just as reluctant about giving up things they were taught as though they were "religious" also, but that in science, experimental and observable science at least, they can be more readily contradicted and forced to admit where they are wrong. However, by shifting around the philosophy of science to extend over unobservable and experimentally untestable historical conjecture under the nomenclature of science, then you have a belief system which cannot be either affirmed or denied.

You are then saying that scientists have strong beliefs about things that cannot be observed and tested. Such as?

How boldly you ask unqualified interrogatives.

Yessir! No screwing around. You stated "However, by shifting around the philosophy of science to extend over unobservable and experimentally untestable historical conjecture under the nomenclature of science, then you have a belief system which cannot be either affirmed or denied" which boldly implied scientists claim things which are unobservable and untestable, do you not?

The consensus changes over time. That being said, the consensus of scientists is our best evidence in most cases. The only reason why you oppose it is because you are a creationist, otherwise the authority would make a lot of sense.

This has been explained to you before. In order to challenge the scientific consensus, you have to actually understand the science. It is not rational to assume that the experts are wrong, and you have no cogent explanation for your claim that everyone better-informed than yourself is wrong.

I won't bother quoting logical fallacies at you, as that is more your style, but you should check your OP and make a note of your glaring hypocrisy.

EDIT: Also, explain how, in this pursuit, you are any different from flat-Earthers, 9/11 Truthers, or Holocaust Deniers.

You are again attacking the idea that the consensus of scientists is the best approximation to truth available at any one time. That is another version of your attack on appeal to authority, which is a fallacy in deductive reasoning, but not a fallacy in inductive reasoning if the authority can be shown to be better at predicting new empirical data than whatever is the alternative you consider.

If you want to argue the consensus of scientists is irrelevant, you have to show that the consensus of scientists is no better at predicting new data than contemporary alternatives, for example people who claim to have discovered the source of Ultimate Truth. You are one of them. Show us that you are better at predicting new data than the consensus of scientists. Or show us that you can get better predictions from the consensus of Young Earth Creationists than from the consensus of scientists.

Because you again attack appeal to authority, I ask you again the question you refused to answer before: when you go right on believing arguments you can't defend, what is your reason? Is it because you trust in the authority of your fellow creationists and the authority you see in your interpretation of the Bible? That would be an appeal to authority. Not that I claim it has to be a fallacy in inductive reasoning, I only ask because I want to know whether you apply the same standard to your own reasoning as to the reasoning of others.

If consensus among scientists were right, then you'd be using technology that ever increases in power and decreases in size as time moves on.

If consensus among scientists were right, you'd be inoculated from some of the most horrific diseases that plagued and scarred humanity for centuries.

If consensus among scientists were right, you'd have an extended life expectancy well near the century mark rather than the average 35 or so unassisted years.



One thing you fail to realize is that consensus among scientists does bring us amazing things. The fact that they've been wrong only helps prove the system works considering that the aspects that were wrong have been proven false and new models have been adapted as such times when the new models are required. I'm still waiting on the big religions of the world to update their models as new information comes into existence and understanding.

That is neither my assumption nor my conclusion. The fact of the matter is that consensus is irrelevant to reality.

That is what you are doing, though. Denying it just makes you look dishonest.

If you want my statement to be clearer, then fine: for non-experts, the only rational course is to defer to the opinions of those who are better-informed. Until you are equipped to really handle and understand the data yourself, it is irrational to disagree with the consensus of experts.

The consensus is not "irrelevant to reality." It is the best approximation to reality possible based on current knowledge.

Ok, but our best guesses aren't relevant to reality either, but they are the best bet at understanding it.

Our best guesses still need a reference to reality to have some credence. A form of measurement, a testing independent of political polls.

Orwell says we need to understand in order to contradict a consensus, yes we do. We need to actually learn the subjects rather than just the opinions about them.