popular opinion as evidence

[Coffee Jesus]

I think whether popular opinion is evidence depends on the hypothesis.

An observation supports the hypothesis if the conditional probability of the observation in the event that the claim is true, P(O|T), is greater than its probability in the event that the claim is false, P(O|F). That is, if there is a mechanism by which the claim being true can influence the probability of the observation, which in this case is whether people think the claim is true.

It's not as simple as equating frequency of belief with likeliness of truth, for the probability could be unusually high or low for either the true or false condition. For example, suppose that hundreds of people throughout history had a divine being reveal to them that "There actually is a hell, but the people who believe in a hell are the people who will be damned." Being disposed to save others from this fate, they would keep this secret.

Also important is how the opinion is distributed. A lot of people believe in the Abrahamic god. It's possible that some of them came to this conclusion because they witnessed an undeniable instance of divine intervention, the nature of which suggested Yahweh. But if that really was how people came to believe this, we would likely see Judeo-like religions originating from isolated cultures that were never in contact. Instead we see Christianity spreading as we would expect any other unfounded belief to spread. (This is also how some scientific ideas spread, but that's okay because we have other methods for evaluating those.) Not to mention that Christianity was largely spread through coercion, and that religiostity is correlated with higher fertility.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

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

[Coffee Jesus]

Yes, I've heard of it. That didn't stop me.

[tor]

Yes, I've heard of it. That didn't stop me.

Unstoppable stupidity.

[Coffee Jesus]

Care to explain what's so stupid about it?

[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.

[tor]

Care to explain what's so stupid about it?

People claim a lot of stupid shit as godly. Why should I care?

[Brian37]

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.

[Coffee Jesus]

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.

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

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.

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.

[tor]

Don't forget that people believe things for different reasons. Some people I've met believe cause "Well if not god who created the world?" argument from ignorance.
While others believed cause something good happened(not god related).
Others believed cause of some dreams. In scientific community people think Pythagoras theorem is true cause it's been proven. And one proof is enough.