subbie writes:
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.
While you've described the portion of the scientific process related to replication and acceptance in a manner designed to cast it in a negative light, it is largely correct, but it isn't the argument from authority. The argument from authority is, "John Smith is a respected authority, he's says this is so, therefore it's so."
As your own description of the process makes clear, scientifically verified theories are not arguments from authority because they are supported by an intense process of experiment, observation, analysis, replication and prediction validation.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
