Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2018, 06:57 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
It's easier than that.

We all come from non-life. In much less than 9 months.

Big Grin

Independent life ... that takes a little longer ... around 18 years.

Intelligent life ... longer still. I know quite a few people who aren't there yet.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like DLJ's post
04-01-2018, 03:17 PM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2018 04:46 PM by mordant.)
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 08:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Nope. Abiogenesis is not a theory; it is a category of (potential) theories.
Or more concisely and accurately, it's a hypothesis.
(27-12-2017 08:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Any theory of the origin of life within the category of abiogenesis must be testable, falsifiable etc. to qualify as a theory.
Any hypothesis must be falsifiable to be scientifically valid and have the potential to become or contribute to an eventual proven scientific theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2018, 03:33 PM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 09:14 AM)Huggy Wrote:  I believe Robvalue accepts abiogenesis as the most plausible scenario for the origin of life, which means he has also accepted an untested, unfalsifiable claim.
Robvalue (and I) accept abiogenesis at this time as the most promising hypothesis with the greater likelihood of being demonstrated to be true.

It is not entirely untested, and it is not unfalsifiable. At least not if you understand what "unfalsifiable" means. It does not necessarily mean that a practical experiment can be constructed that produces abiogenesis at will. If that were what it meant, then it would be impossible to have a supportable view on, say, the Big Bang. What it means is that there are ways to develop a credible preponderance of evidence for or against a thing. It this case it means that there are ways to say that IF abiogenesis is NOT true, this is how you would PROVE it's not true.

The various hypotheses that have been advanced for abiogenesis could be falsified by demonstrating that the biology or chemistry underlying them can't happen. They could be falsified by demonstrating that the conditions posited cannot have existed or don't actually support the process hypothesized or would have been too fleeting to provide any decent odds of success. I'm sure there are other ways.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like mordant's post
04-01-2018, 03:50 PM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(13-12-2017 11:04 AM)f stop Wrote:  If Appeal to Authority is a fallacy then is not citing an article in a peer reviewed journal the same fallacy?

I say no but that's the objection that has been directed at me.

I haven't read through all the replies....

But it does remind me when Bill Nye debated Ken Ham.

Ken Ham mentioned that the inventor of the MRI believed the world was 6000 years old.

Bill Nye cited studies.

All my religious friends who posted on the internet after the debate commented that the inventor of the MRI was a young earth creationist (just like them and therefore he must be right) and dismissed everything Nye mentioned.

That was when I gave myself a concussion from all the facepalming


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
04-01-2018, 05:41 PM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(04-01-2018 03:50 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(13-12-2017 11:04 AM)f stop Wrote:  If Appeal to Authority is a fallacy then is not citing an article in a peer reviewed journal the same fallacy?

I say no but that's the objection that has been directed at me.

I haven't read through all the replies....

But it does remind me when Bill Nye debated Ken Ham.

Ken Ham mentioned that the inventor of the MRI believed the world was 6000 years old.

Bill Nye cited studies.

All my religious friends who posted on the internet after the debate commented that the inventor of the MRI was a young earth creationist (just like them and therefore he must be right) and dismissed everything Nye mentioned.

That was when I gave myself a concussion from all the facepalming
While quoting an authority who is not qualified in the relevant field is the crux of the appeal to authority, there are special forms of it when it comes to positing invisible beings and realms. For example, theists sometimes appeal to a theologian or influential clergy who is claimed to have actual relevant expertise in such matters since the perceived topic IS theological truth. However theology is a faux discipline with zero rigor other than in terms of what the holy book (or in some cases church tradition or proclamations) say or how to apply them. It can say nothing about scientific matters other than to merely contradict them without an evidential basis. So although this is superficially an appeal to someone with relevant expertise, when it comes to conflicts between theology / dogma and actual reality, it is not. It is a category error; whether or not for example the ToE is correct is NOT a theological question, it is a question the is borne upon rather by paleontology, geology, biology and the like. Believers might believe the conceit that theology is either relevant or even a discipline of equivalent stature and rigor to scientific fields -- but it is neither.

Another example is to appeal to someone with great stature (Einstein is popular, and Albert Schweitzer is another good example in that he was not only a theologian but also a physician -- they love people who swing both ways) and hope that the status of some renown as a scientist will imply that religion is not incompatible with science. Sometimes they even will settle for a mere technologist, since they often do not understand the difference between scientific research / discovery and applied science. Or that a renowned scientist / genius saying a few favorable words about a generic non-interventionist deity or about the god-like aspects of nature somehow is an endorsement of THEIR understanding of god.

One of the lists I've seen of "scientists" who supposedly support YEC or ID is mostly technologists. They think that an engineer who thinks the ToE is a hoax is somehow credible to weigh in on the subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
10-01-2018, 10:44 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(04-01-2018 05:41 PM)mordant Wrote:  .. whether or not for example the ToE is correct is NOT a theological question ..
What is the ToE ?

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2018, 10:52 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(10-01-2018 10:44 AM)f stop Wrote:  
(04-01-2018 05:41 PM)mordant Wrote:  .. whether or not for example the ToE is correct is NOT a theological question ..
What is the ToE ?

Theory of Evolution

this little theory went to market

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
10-01-2018, 11:50 PM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(10-01-2018 10:52 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(10-01-2018 10:44 AM)f stop Wrote:  What is the ToE ?

Theory of Evolution

this little theory went to market
Very good! Thank you!

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2018, 12:47 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
A lot of people seem to think evolution and ToE are the same thing. (Mainly people who don't understand either.)

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: