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 und…
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.
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.