The numbers game...

Ohnai,For most things (except for concepts that indeed are a matter of consensus--definitions, for instance), I would think that it is obvious that the truth of anything is quite independent of how many believe the thing to be true.OTOH, I think you already know this, and I wonder what inspired you to ask such a question?This is ever the common argument in the EvC debate--and it gets used on both sides--that nearly all the world stood against Galileo and Galileo was right, therefore, just because all the evolutionists (or creationists) think X is false (or right) doesn't mean X is false (or right).[btw, ohnhai, is your avatar a baby storm trooper--like the ones in the star wars movies? ]

Actually, its a well-known logical fallacy called Appeal to PopularityHere is a link that defines it almost as you have in your OP.

Ohnhai, Haw!Well, I'm a believer (in the Biblical God), but I wouldn't try to persuade an un-believer with that line of reasoning! Sounds like an overly optimistic statistic anyways. (95%!?)I usually get it the other way around...the scientists believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old (or believe in evolution or whatever), so why don't you? But I think I had seen it used by creationists on evolutionists, too...thus I said it was used by both sides.It is fallacious reasoning whichever side uses it and no matter the verity of the concept being discussed and no matter the intelligence of the particular majority invoked.

Well, I've never seen Marvin before...but he is "avatar worthy"...I chuckle (sometimes only mentally, tho) whenever I see him...cuz he looks like a baby storm trooper.

Mr Jack,I didn't see the movie...so I don't know the context.

quote:

---

In the film ‘Contact’ the character Palmer Joss says I couldn’t with good conscience vote for someone who believes the other 95% of us are deluding themselves

I don't think this quote pertains to the same thing as the rest of your post. When you vote for someone you are choosing someone to represent you; so it's not about whether disagreeing with everyone makes them right or wrong but whether that makes them a good choice for a representative of those people.

---

This is curious. If 95% of the people truly were deluding themselves, the best representative would be the fellow who understood this truth. But would he get elected? I doubt it. To do so he would either have to un-delude more than 45% (if its a two-party system), that's quite a job. Or he could continue the delusion (lie through his teeth) till he got in office.AbE: And once he got there, he would likely find himself at odds with most of the government which had probably affirmed the delusion for some nefarious reasons--i.e., he'd have an "accident," die of "natural causes," or get assisinated and the media would quickly show us the "lone fruitcake" who did it (so we'd never figure out it was the government protecting the delusion).This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-09-2005 07:16 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-09-2005 07:20 AM