(February 13, 2019 at 9:05 am)Belaqua Wrote:(February 13, 2019 at 8:30 am)Brian37 Wrote: The ancient Egyptians, Romans and Greeks also had religious leaders, and again, appeal to their authority would also be a fallacy.
But when it comes to facts like evolution and big bang, appealing to the long term observations that confirm those facts, that is not a fallacy.
If trusting in authority is sometimes OK and sometimes not, then trusting in authority is not a logical fallacy.
It may well be a mistake to trust certain people, but it's not a fallacy.
Strictly speaking, the statement "Einstein said it therefore it's true" is a logical fallacy. The statement "Einstein said it therefore I have confidence in it" is not. As I said before, the practical problem comes when we decide whose statements we have confidence in. "Donald Trump said it therefore I have confidence in it" is not a logical fallacy, but it is a mistake.
Not the point.
The consensus that is based on objective independent peer review is the best tool humans have to weed out personal bias. No ethical scientist is going to say, "don't question me." An ethical scientist is going to say, "By all means do so. Kick the tires. I want to know if I am onto something or not.".
Politics and religion are not subject to objectivity. Scientific method is the only principle that has the intent, when used properly, to be self correcting when new or better data come in. Governments and religions are not science labs subject to independent peer review . The word "authority" does not have the same meaning between them.
Consensus in scientific method also comes with the attitude of scrapping bad data. Consensus in politics and religion do not have that standard. Politics and religion uses "consensus" as a popularity contest. So that is not the same word "authority", and cannot be treated the same.
It is the same thing with the word, "theory" laypeople think of, and the different usage of "theory" science uses the same word.
You "obey" a speed limit, because society agrees on that law, or you get a ticket. The "laws" of thermodynamics are not "laws" like lawmakers make, but the word "law" as description of scientists observations that have been countlessly repeated as to foster consensus in agreement, and that is a different kind of "authority" when talking about those things. Scientists are not cops or congressmen, they are scientists, so the word "authority" is a completely different context.
