purpledawn writes:
If we say peer reviewed research aren't we still appealing to the authority of the peers? Aren't we presenting the research as more valid because of their approval?
Yes, but at least we are not relying on one authority, but instead on multiple, often
competing researchers (or research groups even). If they compete, and still agree about the conclusions, then that's a reasonable safeguard. But above all, we are not presenting
someone as an authority, but
some of their research as material for discussion.
If research isn't necessarily right when approved by peers and one presents a peer reviewed study as more valid just because it is peer reviewed, then would that be classified as appealing to authority?
Basically, yes. But just as I would not accept "P is true because X says so", I would also not accept "P is true because it is peer reviewed". I mentioned some additional provisions in my previous post.
If one rejects research because it isn't peer reviewed or done by someone with credentials, does that fall under this fallacy or is there another name for it?
The term "closed-mindedness" springs to mind...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.