(August 25, 2012 at 6:45 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:(August 25, 2012 at 6:29 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Whats the point of having peer review if it doesnt matter how many of your peers agree with your findings?
There's no logical fallacy in observing that most scholars agree.
There's no logical fallacy in using statisics to demonstrate that smoking is almost certainly harmful to your unborn baby.
Imagine someone telling media executives that television ratings statistics were a logical fallacy in deciding when to book an advertisement.
False analogy. Statistics such as smoking statistics are empirical findings. They're not opinions....
It is not a false analogy. Epidemiology is the analysis of such statistics. They are most certainly opinions. Even well-informed, professional, expert opinions are nonetheless - opinions.
(August 25, 2012 at 6:45 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: ...Television ratings aren't used to determine whether a show is truly "good" but whether show is getting enough viewers to make profit.
Yes they are. Thats exactly what they are used for.
Ratings = profit = good.
Poor ratings = less profit (no advertiser demand) = bad.
Good ratings confer a Darwinian survival advantage. That's how you determine what a good show is.
(August 25, 2012 at 6:45 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: ...Peer review is great. It helps keep bad research out of journals but that by itself does not mean the research and its conclusions is correct.
Hang on. A few seconds ago you said ..."False analogy. Statistics such as smoking statistics are empirical findings. They're not opinions...."
Smoking statistics ARE the result of research. Epidemiology seeks tentative expert conclusions. Expert peers can form a consensus and there is no logical fallacy in appealing to majority expert consensus.
(August 25, 2012 at 6:45 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:(August 25, 2012 at 6:29 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: ...
In fact, if 99% of experts on a given subject agreed, then ignoring that fact would make YOU the person acting illogically for rejecting their expertise.
...But ultimately the reason I may side with a consensus is not because the consensus is a consensus but because they make much better arguments than the minority....
Thats exactly what Atom was doing in relation to the majority of bible scholars including Mr Ehrman.
