Science is based on a logical fallacy - II (re: Appeal to Authority)

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.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(re: Appeal to Authority)" part to the topic title.

---

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

I have found some of the same conflicting statements. I suspect that the conflict comes from a desire on the part of some to somehow save the fact that we all have to rely on authority all the time, and make that seem to be a logical position. It may also be due to a confusion between inductive and deductive logic.There really can be no question that Appeal to Authority is a fallacy from a deductive point of view. No matter what authority one appeals to, the fact that someone says something does not make an argument sound as a matter of deductive logic.On the other hand, whether we accept as true a statement that someone else makes depends on whether the statement is in their area of expertise, whether the statement is generally accepted by others in the area, and other considerations. These factors are important because they affect our estimation of the odds that the authority is correct in their statement. This is a consideration in inductive logic, not deductive.

---

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

All of your points are true, and irrelevant to my point.Science relies on the Appeal to Authority because it must. As I said in the OP, and as you argue yourself, nothing would ever get done if everyone had to start from scratch. However, the fact that it's necessary as a practical matter has nothing to do with whether it's a logical fallacy or not. Yes, and I discussed this in the OP. Repeatability doesn't get around the Appeal to Authority. It just makes it Appeal to Authorities. But the fact of the matter is, no matter how many authorities you appeal it, it's the same fallacy. Don't hold your breath.Please note carefully, I never said that the results of science are suspect because of reliance on this fallacy. And, if you read most of what I write, you'll see that I have a great deal of faith in the scientific method, but in theory and as it's put into practice in the real world.However, it's interesting to note the conflicts between science, which is often regarded as the epitome of logic, and basic principles of logic.

---

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

I was going to make the same point, but since he's already at the point where he can't stand it anymore, I didn't want to be responsible for pushing him over the edge.

---

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