Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science is based on a logical fallacy - II
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 1 of 2 (448254)
01-12-2008 6:32 PM


In a previous thread, I demonstrated how science is based on the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. In this thread, I shall show that a second fallacy, Appeal to Authority, is not only frequently applied in science, but is central to its very operation.
Generally speaking, Appeal to Authority is simply saying that something is true based on the fact of someone else saying so. For example, "The world can't be millions of years old, because the bible says it's only a few thousand years old."
Science itself, however, would grind to a halt without the ability to rely on what others say. If every scientist had to prove every proposition based on his own work, progress would be impossible.
Now, surely the objection to this position is that science doesn't rely on what another person says. Science relies on repeatability, the fact that no proposition is accepted as accurate unless and until others can do the same work that the initial proponent of the proposition did and come to the same conclusion.
However, repeatability doesn't eliminate the problem of appeal to authority. It simply means that we are relying on the authority of not just one person, but many.
In the final analysis, science is really nothing more than a popularity contest. When the number of people who claim to have confirmed a given proposition reaches a certain critical mass, the proposition is generally accepted.
This is in fact the true basis for nearly every cdesign proponentist objection to science. "Sure, all you guys claim to have shown that this evilushun stuff is true, but I've never seen it. And my authority says it ain't so." And, while the cdesign proponentist's claim for support for his position is certainly vulnerable to attack based on it being an Appeal to Authority, the interesting thing is that so is the science position.
Is It Science, if you would be so kind.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 2 (448262)
01-12-2008 7:06 PM


Thread copied to the Science is based on a logical fallacy - II thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024