Well it's a fallacy even if there is consensus.

For example - according to consensus of scholars for a long time in history - killing those who insult the Prophet is an Islamic teaching.

According to some scholars now, the Quran teaches the opposite, it teaches to be patient with those who insult the Prophet like the Prophet was patient with them and there is even direct commands to be patient by those who use hurtful speech towards the Muslims and even according to some authentic hadiths (a lady insulted the Prophet and Prophet told his wife not to insult her back and treat her with compassion and kind words).

So here is an example of consensus not working. Scholars agreed upon that Islam taught one thing, yet Quran and hadiths taught another thing, and it's only being realized now by current scholars (perhaps because the past weren't as good as deducing logical implications from verses and hadiths).

---

As far as science goes. Whatever authority is motivated by ideology, I don't trust 100% (ie. the theory of evolution, I take with a grain of salt as "proven beyond doubt") and I don't trust "creation science (less then 10 000 years old earth)" either. They are both ideologically driven, so doesn't matter how much evidence each side has, I am going to do my own research or remain undecided.

When it comes to engineers building bridges, I don't see ideology behind that. When I see people curing diseases I don't see ideology behind that.

So when people don't have a bias, are objective, and have the tools to know...I would say this makes it highly likely that things will turn out to be true.

How does one spend 5-1/2 years in high school? Even nearly failing high school myself, I graduated in three.


(ETA: Oh, and saying you learned information from someone's profile when you did no such thing, is... survey says: lying!)

Because I am a dumb person. I looked at Mr Infidels profile and went to his website and you can see his picture. He looks like someone who would post a response to the thoughtful, 4 or 5 paragraphs with an image saying "question authority", without argument. How ironic.


MysticKnight you don't think that the structures that limit ideology and try and promote rigorous analysis, such as rejecting all non-falsifiable beliefs or something like that don't form another kind of ideology?

Ideology is the human condition. People cannot know the noumena, they can only interpret it, through the lens of human created methods, which are a kind of ideology, whether they represent self interest (which itself grounds belief in necessary material conditions) or not (unless they are mystics, who have it revealed to them by the knower).

(March 28, 2013 at 11:44 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Because I am a dumb person

If you are expecting pity, you will not find it from me.

Joe, what is it with you and age? There are younger people than you, who are brighter than you. Get over it already.

You have an obsessive vendetta against the youth. It's really creepy.

(March 28, 2013 at 10:36 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Prove that it is a fallacy to say "My doctor told me cigarettes cause cancer so based only on this, it is likely that cigarettes cause cancer". Where does fallacious reasoning enter that?

The fallacious reasoning is that you are basing the claim that cigarettes cause cancer solely on the fact that the doctor stated it. Change the sentence to "My doctor told me prayers cause cancer so based only on this, it is likely that prayers cause cancer." Do you accept his claim? After all, you accepted his claim regarding cigarettes based, not on any other information or studies or research, but entirely on the claim itself.

(March 28, 2013 at 11:44 pm)jstrodel Wrote: MysticKnight you don't think that the structures that limit ideology and try and promote rigorous analysis, such as rejecting all non-falsifiable beliefs or something like that don't form another kind of ideology?

Yes they do. But engineers building bridges has nothing to do with that. Doctors curing disease has nothing to do with that.

When it comes to origins of life, if a scientist tells me there is no proof for design, I would not take his word for it. And if a scientist tells me there is proof for design, I would not take his word for it. Both are ideologically driven. And it's near impossible to be neutral, they will have a bias.

(March 28, 2013 at 10:55 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Honestly, I realize I sound really condescending, but I am just trying to share things with people I think would help them. I had a real rough time growing up. Not trying to beat anyone up or be condescending, I have made so many mistakes and done so much stupid things in my life.

Yes, you do sound condescending. It's not your job to ensure everyone in the world reasons the way you do. It's no ones job here to accept your thinking and agree with you.

(March 28, 2013 at 10:55 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I was in high school for 5 1/2 years and I dropped out of college. I am not better or smarter than anyone else and I'm not trying to be. I just realize that some of you guys don't know what you are talking about. It is not that I am trying to insult you, it is that you simply aren't aware of the right way to think about certain things, not that it is in a religious sense, it is that you unaware of how people think about these things in professional contexts.

Why is your personal mission to educate random people on the internet? If you are debating someone who won't accept your appeal to authority because they disagree with you about the authoritative status of the source, you have a few options: 1. Make a case for the source you are citing as authoritative, though the other person may still disagree with you. In which case, make your arguement without that authority. 2. Agree to disagree. If this appeal to authority is the sole basis of your argument, I'd wager you still have more to learn on the subject, because that's not a great arguement. 3. Just walk away, instead of creating multiple threads where you attempt to accomplish the exact same purpose, and get all huffy about getting shot down, yet again.
Seriously, this is not your job. If you're here to win some souls for Jesus, you aren't going to get anywhere by telling people, "You're stupid and don't reason properly. Let me teach you how to think." You're just going to get pointed and laughed at. This is worse than preaching.

Prayer doesn't cause cancer, it's just a symptom of cancer Tonus.