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

I am inclined to disagree.It only looks as if science relies on authority because of the way Philosophy of Science and the conventional wisdom describe (really misdescribe) science.I was not actively participating here during most of the discussion of your earlier thread. But my comment above applies also to that alleged fallacy.Galileo, and later Newton, rejected the authority of the Ptolemaics.Einstein rejected the authority of the Newtonians.It seems to me that challenging authority is important to science.

---

Let's end the political smears

I think you are making a poor argument there.Your argument should be that a conclusion can be true, even though the argument given was fallacious. Again, I disagree. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The result of an appeal to authority might well be correct. But you did not reach that result using logic. You might have good reason th accept authority in this particular case. But your decision to accept authority is outside of logic.To say that it is a fallacy is only to say that it falls outside of logic. It does not say that the conclusion is wrong.

---

Let's end the political smears

In Message 3, I wrote: "It only looks as if science relies on authority because of the way Philosophy of Science and the conventional wisdom describe (really misdescribe) science." I want to expand on that here. This assumes that the point of science is to produce true propositions. It isn't. Philosophers of science describe science as if it is. That's a philosopher's disease, as philosophers just love propositions.To the scientists, it is method that is all important. Scientific laws, as language statements, are simply descriptions of key methods for the particular science. The scientist does not take the propositions on authority. He doesn't even much care about them as propositions. Rather, he looks at the methods which will be useful for his own science.What is important about the methods, is that they work. They are accepted on pragmatic grounds, not because they are alleged to state some truths about the world. But the working scientist need not rely on authority to know that the methods work. The scientist can see that for himself in his own scientific work. He is using those methods regularly, and they are working for him. The voice of authority is not needed for him to recognize that they work.For a simple example, consider Ohm's law. This law is built into the multimeter that I use if I am measuring part of an electrical circuit. Every time I use that multimeter, and get good results, I am getting support for Ohm's law. And the operations of the meter don't rely on authority, though they do implement widely accepted conventions.Edited by nwr, : fix typo

---

Let's end the political smears

I hope you won't mind my pointing out that you just make an appeal to authority

---

Let's end the political smears

The term "fallacy" is sometimes thrown around too loosely.The proper way to use logic it to start with agreed premises, then use logic in reaching conclusions. One might well cite authorities to provide support for the premises. But techically, that's not part of the logic. As long as a debate opponent is allowed to challenge your premises, there really isn't a fallacy involved. Appeal to authority is a problem when it is hauled in later, after the premises should have been established.If you say "I'm right, and authority X agrees with me", that's an appeal to authority. You tried to close off the debate with your use of an authority.If you say "I believe I am right, and authority X also believes that" you are not really appealing to authority, because you are still allowing room for disagreement. You cited the authority for support, but did not assert that the authority settles the issue.

---

Let's end the political smears

I think we are having a semantic disagreement here. I am using the expression "appeal to authority" more narrowly than you want to use it. As I use the term, a citation is not an appeal to authority.I guess I could put it this way. Citing an authority in an attempt to persuade your your opponent is not an appeal to authority. It is simply a citation of supporting evidence.Citing an authority in an attempt to compel agreement is an appeal to authority.I don't have a problem with consulting your doctor about that brain tumor. That's not an appeal to authority. However, if that Doctor insists that you accept his advice without seeking a second opinion, then that is an appeal to his own authority, and it should give you great cause for concern.

---

Let's end the political smears

Does it even matter whether I agree?I'm responsible for keeping the logic straight in my own arguments. I make no claims to be an authority on logic fallacies.In the unlikely event that I ever wrote a book on logic, it would probably say very little about fallacies. It's the philosophers who make a big deal over fallacies, not the mathematicians. Hmm, come to think of it, that even makes sense. After all it is in the philosophy literature that you can find the committing of fallacy after fallacy. You will rarely find that in the mathematics literature.

---

Let's end the political smears