Peepul writes:I don't buy this 'appeal to authority' point. In the end, all the evidence we look at has been put together by other people. Most of us here don't actually do the science. We trust what the 'authorities' tell us about what they have found AND often they tell us what it means.
I don't agree with that.
We pay attention to what the authorities say. But we don't automatically accept it on the basis that they are authorities.
It is true, however, that most of us are not collecting our own evidence. So we do rely on reports of evidence. But we generally look at the preponderance of such reports rather than basing our acceptance on the credentials of a single authority.
May that's a subtle distinction, but I think it is an important one.
Peepul writes:If a true expert in a field expresses a view, then it's usually worth taking note of it.
I agree with that. But taking note of what the expert says is a lot different from automatically accepting it based only on the authority of that expert. Experts can still be wrong from time to time.