popular opinion as evidence

[Rampant.A.I.]

For a while, popular opinion was that the world was flat.

In the Middle Ages, people believed in Spontanious Generation. Rats spontaneously generated from piles of rags, maggots from meat.

People still believe hair and fingernails continue to grow after death, old windowpanes appear wavy because glass stays "liquid" and flows downward very slowly, taste zones on the tongue, that Columbus was concerned about falling off the edge of the earth, that a Brontosaurus was a type of dinosaur... The list of "facts" goes on.

The popularity of an opinion has no bearing on the truth of that opinion.

Confirmation bias. We never stop to think about the commonly accepted claims that were never overturned. They are the water we swim in.

Which is exactly why "common sense" is fraught with error. Without independently testing or verifying these claims, all sorts of "common knowledge" can be accepted without actually being true, and it's important to evaluate claims used to support other claims.

Any random claim you could have pulled out your ass will probably be false. Suppose its probability, P(T), was only 0.01 to begin with. If P(O) · 3 = P(O|T), then its probability has only increased to .03 per Bayes' formula. Its probability is still very small, but it did increase.
P(T|O) = P(O|T) · P(T) / P(O)
P(T|O) = .75 · .01 / .25
P(T|O) = .03

None of those are random claims from DRE. They are commonly presented as fact: the "taste zones" of the tongue" to my knowledge still appears in textbooks.

[quote='Rampant.A.I.' pid='649219' dateline='1397264155']
Furthermore, the degree to which the claim's probability increases depends on the relationship between the event of the claim being true and the event of people supporting the claim. If some janitors tell me a clown ran down the hallway, the probability of that increases by a lot. Not so much if the janitors tell me there are exactly three universes.

I feel as if we haven't escaped argument ad populum yet are getting into appeals to authority.

The janitors have direct experience of the hallway, and if all of them advance the same claim, it's more probable: because of their direct experience, but not in absence of other knowledge or coherence with reality. If three janitors tell you Mahatma Ghandi ran down the hallway with a flaming sword, the probability that they were mistaken or pulling your chain rises dramatically.

[quote='Brian37' pid='649227' dateline='1397265053']
There is a difference between popular opinion, and consensus based on observation, testing and falsification.

The "popular opinion" of religion and god claims is merely mob rule by placebo.

The consensus of science isn't dependent on popularity.

There is a HUGE difference between when a scientist says "Most scientists accept"

And, "Most people believe".

To attempt to equate the two is absurd.

I didn't equate the two. If I know that it became popular through reliance on observation, then the probability increase is larger than when I don't know why it became popular.
But the probability increase isn't entirely negated, unless you can show that I have no reason to think any of its popularity is due to a reliance on observation. You would do this by showing that we could expect some degree of popular support even in the false condition, even if you leave the expected amount blank. Then I would have to show that the expected amount is still below what is actually observed, even after taking your explanation into account.

I'm still wary of personal testimony being placed higher than coherence with other knowledge. Ask anyone in the justice system or law enforcement how reliable eye witness is.

[MindForgedManacle]

Coffee Jesus is correct actually guys. He did not make an ad populum fallacy, he merely gave the correct elucidation as to what evidence is.

---

Ever heard of the ad populum fallacy? Look it up, son. /thread

See above.

Unstoppable stupidity.

He's right actually.

For a while, popular opinion was that the world was flat.

In the Middle Ages, people believed in Spontanious Generation. Rats spontaneously generated from piles of rags, maggots from meat.

People still believe hair and fingernails continue to grow after death, old windowpanes appear wavy because glass stays "liquid" and flows downward very slowly, taste zones on the tongue, that Columbus was concerned about falling off the edge of the earth, that a Brontosaurus was a type of dinosaur... The list of "facts" goes on.

The popularity of an opinion has no bearing on the truth of that opinion.

You're equivocating "evidence" with "truth". All evidence is, as Coffee correctly stated, is that the probability of X is more likely given Y. If someone makes the claim "I own a dog.", their statement, along with one's background knowledge, lends evidence to the likelihood that he does in fact own a dog. And yes, the fact that there are god concepts in existence DOES make it more likely that there are gods than the probability would have been if humanity had no god concepts.

[tor]

Coffee Jesus is correct actually guys. He did not make an ad populum fallacy, he merely gave the correct elucidation as to what evidence is.

---

Ever heard of the ad populum fallacy? Look it up, son. /thread

See above.

Unstoppable stupidity.

He's right actually.

For a while, popular opinion was that the world was flat.

In the Middle Ages, people believed in Spontanious Generation. Rats spontaneously generated from piles of rags, maggots from meat.

People still believe hair and fingernails continue to grow after death, old windowpanes appear wavy because glass stays "liquid" and flows downward very slowly, taste zones on the tongue, that Columbus was concerned about falling off the edge of the earth, that a Brontosaurus was a type of dinosaur... The list of "facts" goes on.

The popularity of an opinion has no bearing on the truth of that opinion.

You're equivocating "evidence" with "truth". All evidence is, as Coffee correctly stated, is that the probability of X is more likely given Y. If someone makes the claim "I own a dog.", their statement, along with one's background knowledge, lends evidence to the likelihood that he does in fact own a dog. And yes, the fact that there are god concepts in existence DOES make it more likely that there are gods than the probability would have been if humanity had no god concepts.

We also have a concept of godzilla

[MindForgedManacle]

And if we didn't have the concept of Godzilla, how likely would it be that there was such a thing?

[tor]

And if we didn't have the concept of Godzilla, how likely would it be that there was such a thing?

Just as unlikely as it would be if we have a concept.

[Coffee Jesus]

Which is exactly why "common sense" is fraught with error. Without independently testing or verifying these claims, all sorts of "common knowledge" can be accepted without actually being true, and it's important to evaluate claims used to support other claims.

But we cannot always evaluate their reasoning for ourselves. In such cases, we will have to consider the probability that they had good reason to believe it.

I could accept that there are some default counterarguments to ad populum appeals that must be overturned before the appeal is valid. For example, bad logic could be a default coutnerargument. Whatever the claim is, the ad populum appeal is not valid until they show that bad logic probably wouldn't account for all of the observed popularity. But even then, we could throw on other counterarguments, like hallucinations, liars, etc. Anybody who wants to make a valid ad populum appeal will likely have an arduous task ahead of them.

And yes, the fact that there are god concepts in existence DOES make it more likely that there are gods than the probability would have been if humanity had no god concepts.

Yes, but that sort of reasoning is useless unless we have established the expectation for the false condition. After all, if we had reason to expect that many people would believe in gods even if there were no gods (null hypothesis), but then nobody at all believed in gods, that would be inconsistent with the null hypothesis.

[MindForgedManacle]

No, that's clearly silly. Is the likelihood that someone owns a dog just as likely before they tell you they own one as it is after they tell you they own one?

Again, this doesn't mean that, say, Godzilla is more likely to exist than not, but that Godzilla's existence is more likely given certain pieces of evidence than if those evidences didn't exist.

[tor]

No, that's clearly silly. Is the likelihood that someone owns a dog just as likely before they tell you they own one as it is after they tell you they own one?

Again, this doesn't mean that, say, Godzilla is more likely to exist than not, but that Godzilla's existence is more likely given certain pieces of evidence than if those evidences didn't exist.

I tell a town of stupid people I'm a wizard. People believe me. Does that make me more likely to be a wizard? No.

[MindForgedManacle]

Yes, but that sort of reasoning is useless unless we have established the expectation for the false condition. After all, if we had reason to expect that many people would believe in gods even if there were no gods (null hypothesis), but then nobody at all believed in gods, that would be inconsistent with the null hypothesis.

I agree. I was really making a point that some here don't like to accept: that there is evidence for God/gods,. Of course, that doesn't make it good or compelling evidence, much less such that makes God's/gods' existence more likely than the negation.

[tor]

Yes, but that sort of reasoning is useless unless we have established the expectation for the false condition. After all, if we had reason to expect that many people would believe in gods even if there were no gods (null hypothesis), but then nobody at all believed in gods, that would be inconsistent with the null hypothesis.

I agree. I was really making a point that some here don't like to accept: that there is evidence for God/gods,. Of course, that doesn't make it good or compelling evidence, much less such that makes God's/gods' existence more likely than the negation.

There is no evidence for gods just like there is no evidence that I'm a wizard. Why do you fail?