Hubris, but also a perverse deification of "science". There is a sense among the current generation of "experts" that answers MUST be grounded in "science", and that everything MUST be justified by "science".
Which, ironically, is as unscientific a notion as can be had in the realm of public policy (or any policy).
Hubris, but also a perverse deification of "science". There is a sense among the current generation of "experts" that answers MUST be grounded in "science", and that everything MUST be justified by "science".
Which, ironically, is as unscientific a notion as can be had in the realm of public policy (or any policy).
This was something I noted about the face mask debacle back in 2020. Despite having ZERO evidence that universal masking would have any benefit at all, the "experts" contorted themselves every which way to define a scientific rationale for the masking, completely ignoring the equally valid (and arguably more persuasive) ethical arguments.
Had they grounded the masking recommendations and mandates in a "balance of harms" argument, I doubt they would have become the contentious issue they are today. The worst case scenario for the ethics approach would be that, if scientific data disproved the efficacy of mask mandates, there would be no serious impediment to their withdrawal--"okay, we tried it and it didn't work, so we'll try something else."
Instead, the CDC cobbled together a hodgepodge of dubious studies to show "see? masks really DO work!"
Not every question can be answered with "science", or even "Science™". As the "experts" and wokesters are constantly having to relearn.
That really comes down to proof by authority, not by scientific evidence. We didn't need the evidence if a mouthpiece we were told to trust said that this is how things work. Read/hear/see it and just obey.
This is generally the problem with scientists all around and their arrogance. This isn't new- this is something I saw even as an undergraduate when hearing P.I.'s discuss topics. There was just a level of hubris that makes one so recalcitrant from hearing other opinions.
Again, it's something we should look out for on both sides. When someone raises questions and the default response becomes "I'm a doctor" or "I have a Ph.D. so I'm qualified to talk", then we're not reasoning based on evidence, we're reasoning based on someone's position as an authority figure.
Typically, the ad verecundiam fallacy pertains to an appeal to an unqualified authority--someone who's background and knowledge do not support a legitimate claim of expertise.
However, even among "qualified" authorities, assertions must be supported by evidence, or they are merely opinions, and thus should be given the least evidentiary weight.
This is the conclusion of "experts", from a 2018 study in the BMJ assessing the role of "expert opinion" in clinical practice guidelines.
Thus, while not a true ad verecundiam fallacy, reliance on the unsupported opinion even of a qualified authority on a subject is still a logical fallacy of weak induction.
Any appeal to authority is thus logical fallacy rather than logical argument.
Yes. And the very condition that necessitates putting “science” in quotes goes to the heart of the issue. Those in power today (and maybe always?) see language as an means to an end (power) rather than a vehicle for characterizing truth. The same people who are demanding that we bow unthinkingly in submission to “science” fail to see that such demands discredit their truth claim in the same breath.
Hubris, but also a perverse deification of "science". There is a sense among the current generation of "experts" that answers MUST be grounded in "science", and that everything MUST be justified by "science".
Which, ironically, is as unscientific a notion as can be had in the realm of public policy (or any policy).
This was something I noted about the face mask debacle back in 2020. Despite having ZERO evidence that universal masking would have any benefit at all, the "experts" contorted themselves every which way to define a scientific rationale for the masking, completely ignoring the equally valid (and arguably more persuasive) ethical arguments.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/who-needs-science-when-you-have-expertshtml
Had they grounded the masking recommendations and mandates in a "balance of harms" argument, I doubt they would have become the contentious issue they are today. The worst case scenario for the ethics approach would be that, if scientific data disproved the efficacy of mask mandates, there would be no serious impediment to their withdrawal--"okay, we tried it and it didn't work, so we'll try something else."
Instead, the CDC cobbled together a hodgepodge of dubious studies to show "see? masks really DO work!"
Not every question can be answered with "science", or even "Science™". As the "experts" and wokesters are constantly having to relearn.
That really comes down to proof by authority, not by scientific evidence. We didn't need the evidence if a mouthpiece we were told to trust said that this is how things work. Read/hear/see it and just obey.
This is generally the problem with scientists all around and their arrogance. This isn't new- this is something I saw even as an undergraduate when hearing P.I.'s discuss topics. There was just a level of hubris that makes one so recalcitrant from hearing other opinions.
Again, it's something we should look out for on both sides. When someone raises questions and the default response becomes "I'm a doctor" or "I have a Ph.D. so I'm qualified to talk", then we're not reasoning based on evidence, we're reasoning based on someone's position as an authority figure.
Typically, the ad verecundiam fallacy pertains to an appeal to an unqualified authority--someone who's background and knowledge do not support a legitimate claim of expertise.
However, even among "qualified" authorities, assertions must be supported by evidence, or they are merely opinions, and thus should be given the least evidentiary weight.
This is the conclusion of "experts", from a 2018 study in the BMJ assessing the role of "expert opinion" in clinical practice guidelines.
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/22/5/164
Thus, while not a true ad verecundiam fallacy, reliance on the unsupported opinion even of a qualified authority on a subject is still a logical fallacy of weak induction.
Any appeal to authority is thus logical fallacy rather than logical argument.
Yes. And the very condition that necessitates putting “science” in quotes goes to the heart of the issue. Those in power today (and maybe always?) see language as an means to an end (power) rather than a vehicle for characterizing truth. The same people who are demanding that we bow unthinkingly in submission to “science” fail to see that such demands discredit their truth claim in the same breath.
Nice touch with the trademark.