There are several points involved here
(1) the issue of invalid vs false
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.
The issue of a logical conclusion being invalid but true holds for all logical fallacies -- the conclusion may be true, it is just that it does not follow from the logic. In this sense the conclusion is like a an opinion, and that opinion could be based on some information outside the logical construction.
Or it could be a lucky guess: we don't know, and can't know, because the logical structure does not support the conclusion.
(This should also not be confused with conclusions that have been falsified and thus are known to be false.)
(2) external validation of the logic
The scientific method, again as pointed out by nwr (and rrhain), does not rest solely on the logical conclusions, but on testing of them by many independent scientists against external evidence, facts.
In this case, referring to the authority of the body of science is referring to the state of knowledge that we have on tested and validated concepts, as opposed to the the authority of just the opinions of a group of scientists.
Percy talks about science being a consensus of concepts that have been tested and as yet are not falsified. In areas where there are concepts with no alternative theories there would be virtually universal consensus. Consensus without dissent between experts within the field based on tested and validated conclusions is not trivial opinion.
(3) ethical consequences and trust
The ethical consequences of using invalid or falsified data in science is the quick end of the career and the publication of the facts. This, along with the principal of falsification, removes false information from the field/s, and this intentional universal removal of known false information makes the body of knowledge just a bit more trustworthy than, say, the compilation of everything ever done.
Compare this to the compilation of opinions used by creationists, where every falsified concept, misrepresentation, and outright falsehood is maintained as part of the reference for future creationists to use. Once you know there are intentionally perpetuated falsehoods in the information, the only valid conclusion is that none of it can be trusted.
(4) building on the past, with references
Science builds on past knowledge, and doesn't "reinvent the wheel" once the wheel is invented. It just needs to reference the wheel invention so that it can be validated if necessary.
This is really no different that a philosopher referring to the work of a predecessor and saying "{A} in book {X} showed that {Y} was a valid conclusion, and building on that conclusion I develop conclusion {Z}," as one can pull out book {X} and check {A}'s conclusion of {Y} for validity. One can also check to see if {A}'s work has been invalidated by anyone else.
This is why all those lists of all those references is so necessary for all those scientific articles.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clarity
Edited by RAZD, : added (4)
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.