Tags » Appeal To Authority

Authority, concensus, bias and ad homs

I have been debating with Rob Martin on his site here, here, and here, his response to Richard Carrier’s mythicist claims. I think it is worth setting out here my full response to the issues raised in those discussions, because they are so fundamental to how we argue validly (or not).* 918 more words

Welcome to Hell, Maggots

This is critical thinking boot camp.

I didn’t get a lot of exposure to critical thinking processes growing up. Nor did most of the thinkers I know. 365 more words

Critical Thinking

Appeal to Authority 01

Note: The safety or otherwise of vaccines isn’t the point here.

Here you can see an argument based entirely on an appeal to authority. The illusion of truth is assisted by the presentation; notice how the senator introduces her, also the formal surroundings and dress, implying gravity. 51 more words

Appeal To Authority

Ross Pomeroy advocates consensus science--nice going Ross

I was astounded to read this ignorant babble about warming, mixed in with some reasonable stuff on various forms of truthers and paranoids. 208 more words

Climate Change

Deciding science by voting - updated

One of the troubling aspects of climate alarmism is its repeated appeals to authority. Rather odd for a bunch left-wingers trying to overthrow the status quo and the established order. 658 more words

Public Choice

When to Doubt a Scientific Consensus

  • Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. Many false ideas enjoyed consensus opinion at one time.
  • 367 more words
Climate Change

Michael Lawrence Langan, M.D. reblogged this on Disrupted Physician and commented:

The 12-red flags below are very applicable to American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) related consensus and public policy.    When viewed through this lens the science and research all falls apart. (1) When different claims get bundled together. (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate. (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line. (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish. (5) When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent. (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented. (7) When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists. (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus. (9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution. (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies. (11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible. (12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus.