quote:
I'm sorry, this is slightly confusing for me, how can an argument be logically invalid and still be reasonable?
Given the truth of the premises a logically valid argument GUARANTEES the truth of the conclusion. An argument that merely provides strong support for the conclusion - no matter how near certain - is not logically valid.
quote:
Could you explain what a "genuine authority" is in context to what you mean? (More to the point, how does one determine what qualifies another to be a "genuine authority"?)
A genuine authority would be someone who has real expertise in the field under discussion. You would determine that by qualifications, publications, reputation within the field and so on.
quote:
Why?
The way I understand it, advancements in science are accepted based on the merit of the ideas in conjunction with the validity of the methods used to test the idea.
Why should it matter if the idea is popular or not?
It's not a popularity test. It's a recognition of the fact that many experts are better than one. And if ideas in science are "are accepted based on the merit of the ideas in conjunction with the validity of the methods used to test the idea" can't we assume that IF an idea is accepted in science it has merit and has undergone - and passed - valid tests ?
quote:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "mainstream".
The mainstream would be the accepted view. A crank view would be the exact opposite.
Sometimes a crank idea can be proposed by a scientist and even make it into a peer-reviewed journal, like the recent paper discussed
hereArguing that that paper is valid just because it was written by a scientist and got published would really be an example of a bad argument from authority.
quote:
1) "we can't know as much as the experts..."
I disagree. If what seperates the leyfolk from the experts is a matter of formal education vs. informal education (or simplly an incomplete formal education), what you are in saying is that it is impossible to obtain higher knowlege in a given field outside of a formal setting.
As a practical matter it would be extremely hard to obtain expert level knowledge in even one field. Obtaining expert level status in more than one field would be far more difficult. Expert level knowledge in every field here would seem to be possible. Even those of us who are very well informed in a particular field (such as Cavediver in the field of physics) are probably well behind the leading experts.
quote:
2)"...and may not be able to investigate a claim in sufficient depth."
Yet it could also be said that we may be able to investigate a claim in sufficient depth. Wouldn't that entirely depend on a case by case basis? If an experament was performed, wouldn't the basis of determining if the results hold merrit be decided based on the observations made, methodology used, repeatability of the experament, understanding of the observations made, and the "peer review" process?
If you have sufficient knowledge to evaluate all those factors...
In reality most of us aren't willing to pay to get the papers (and there often is a fee involved) and often poorly equipped to understand the more technical papers. And that's on the pro-science side.
quote:
3) "In that case, the consensus opinion of the experts may be as good as we can get."
Thats presuming a lot...
If you really think that you understand every field better than the majority of people actually working in that field then I would say that you are the one presuming a lot.
Edited by PaulK, : Added example of crank paper
™ Version 4.2
(1)
