(August 30, 2014 at 4:35 pm)Dawsonite Wrote: Referring to "facts" "independently" verified by people who you trust. You have to believe that these people actually performed the science that they claim to have done. That's not referencing reality unless you witnessed the science. That's just argument from authority, which is the same thing that the Creationists do.
It's only an argument from authority if the authority you're referencing is misplaced. Referencing an actual authority in a given field, especially with regards to specific work they've done, is perfectly valid.
There's also a huge difference in how those authorities conduct themselves; a scientific authority has been through years of training and study, been vetted by educational institutes that are accredited, and also functions as a part of the scientific community. When they make a claim, the way it gets taken seriously is if the claim itself is open to repeatability and peer review; any given scientist is open about their methods, and puts their reputation on the line there. If they've just made shit up, they will get called on it, and their academic record tarnished.
I'm not particularly fond of this "you weren't there to witness the science being done, thus faith" line of reasoning since it's very close to something Ken Ham might say, not to mention solipsism, but even taking it at face value the scientific community has earned that trust, where the religious one has not.
Oh, and welcome.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!