Haven't you also noticed arguments to the effect that "But all the scientists believe in evolution. ...
Not from evolutionists, but I hear it all the time from creationists. It's not a matter of belief:
quote:
belief -noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Not a single reference to evidence, fact, observation or data.
The fact that {christian\religious\faithful} people tend to operate in more or less total belief mode does not mean that everyone does. This is probably hard for someone that does not rely on evidence for their {world view} to understand.
One of the tenets of reading science fiction is that during the story you engage in the suspension of disbelief: we may think the concept of light-sabers is preposterous, but we suspend that disbelief while we enjoy the story of Star Wars.
This is telling of the way the scientific approach is different from the religious: in the scientific approach there is no suspension of disbelief, the INTENT is to disprove, to take apart and inspect every facet for the evidence against it.
Belief clings to concepts accepted as truths without evidence, and often in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Science clings to the singular concept that it
could be wrong and that we need to try to
prove it wrong to avoid making mistakes.
No belief structure makes that kind of claim.
... Therefore the numbers argue for its varacity."
No, what argues for it's veracity is the evidence, the observations, the tests, the data, the facts.
What argues for it's veracity is that experiments can be repeated hundreds of times and get the same results.
What argues for it's veracity is that experiments can be done by Boris in Bulgaria, Chu in China, Louise in Louisiana, and Paravandi in Pakistan - each with different {world views} and beliefs - and they get the same results.
The facts and evidence can be independently reviewed from first principles, without reference to the theory of evolution, and what will rise from that review is the theory of evolution - as long as the review is NOT clouded by beliefs.
I have seen plenty of appeals to the majority of scientists supporting Evolution arguing that the theory has no legitimate rivals.
Even in your paraphrase of the argument you show that the telling element is not the number of scientists or their beliefs, but the lack of alternative theories.
It doesn't matter if we are talking 1 scientist or 3 billion: if there is no alternative theory that explains the evidence even half as well as the leading contender, then that theory is the one that is best supported by the evidence.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2