Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, October 7. 2015

Can Truth Be Subjected to a Vote?


Sure, it can be subjected to a vote, but the vote will only show the current majority view of the current state of the data and interpretation. Rarely Truth. Today's Truth will be tomorrow's object of mockery.


Should Scientific Truth Be Subjected to a Vote?


Posted by The Barrister in Fallacies and Logic, The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 09:33 | Comments (20) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I suspect there will be many vote counters who will toss out votes contrary to their position.
#1 Sam L. on 2015-10-07 13:14 (Reply)
Sure, it can be subjected to a vote, but the vote will only show the current majority view of the current state of the data and interpretation. Rarely Truth. Today's Truth will be tomorrow's object of mockery.

this is way too simplistic, too simplistic to have any value at all. it runs against a basic tenet of science: that there is an objective description of reality possible even if not currently complete.

alfred wegener's theory of "continental drift" was -- correctly -- rejected by geologists for decades until the mechanism for plate tectonics was discovered; that continents move is now universally accepted.

anyone who followed the debate over the mass extinction at the K/Pg boundary over the last 20 years has seen how science arrives at a consensus.

the standard model of quantum mechanics, although incomplete, is a far more accurate description of the universe than the newtonian model it replaced.

the problem with warmal colding is that it is contaminated by libtarded political hacks and a long history of failed predictions: is the ice age comin'? the world was supposed to have ended several times already, all aggravated by lying frauds and hockey sticks.
#2 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-10-07 13:42 (Reply)
Most of the public, and particularly critics of science, do not have even a passing acquaintance with science...science is hard and most individuals don't do hard. Politicians exploit this fact for votes by corrupting science for their own gain.
#3 rocdoctom on 2015-10-07 15:26 (Reply)
Appeal to authority is an inductive argument, that experts are more likely right about matters within their own field than non-experts. You are more likely to get a correct answer concerning your physical illness by asking your doctor than your bartender. If three independent doctors agree you have cancer, you should probably consider making plans for treatment.

QUOTE:
An appeal to authority is valid when

- The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
- The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
- The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
- There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
- There is no evidence of undue bias.

The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.

Because appeal to authority is an inductive argument, there is always uncertainty, even with the strongest scientific consensus. For decision-making, it's important to distinguish what the science says, and then balance that against the pros and cons of various actions.
#4 Zachriel on 2015-10-07 17:12 (Reply)
appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, which explains its widespread misuse by the warmal coldists -- the endless onslaught of graphs and predictions that inevitably fail propped up by screeching morality and the demand that opposing views be quashed.

science does not tell people what to think, nor is there a Bible of Science. bogus claims from being published: a creationist can publish in a "peer reviewed" creation-science journal, a warmist can testify before congress that george bush and capitalism are going to cause the world to end next decade, as they frequently do.

science does self-police after the debate is settled. you don't find peer reviewed journals publishing articles explaining why continental drift is impossible. you will find articles discussing dinosaur-bird evolution and republican-made global warminering.

when science has to be presented to a court, it is done through the opinion testimony of experts, and, at least in federal courts, the court act as a gatekeeper to keep the creationists and other bogus opinions out. and what separates the testimony of a qualified expert from an appeal to authority is a rigorous set of standards.

anyone curious can read about this here a review of a few shows where warmal coldists fail:

(2) Whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion.

(3) Whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations.

(5) Whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give.

testimony on the standard model of quantum mechanics would pass this test, warmal colding would not.
#4.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-10-07 18:08 (Reply)
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: appeal to authority is a logical fallacy

It's only a logical fallacy if used deductively, such as a claim based on infallibility. Everyone uses appeals to authority, such as medical advice, a paleontologist working with a geologist, or hiring a plumber.

Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: (2)(3)

Those are appeals to the evidence, which can be reasonable arguments to an appeal to authority, but rarely successful by someone outside the field.

Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: (5)

That is an attempt to undermine the appeal with the claim that "The area of expertise is {not} a valid field of study.".

-
Interesting how you claimed an appeal to authority was necessarily fallacious, then provided a method for evaluating the validity of such an appeal.
#4.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-07 18:23 (Reply)
the only interesting thing is that you don't have a clue why "appeal to authority" is a flaw in reasoning.

stop cribbing someone's else's quotes and do your own thinking.
#4.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-10-08 01:01 (Reply)
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz: the only interesting thing is that you don't have a clue why "appeal to authority" is a flaw in reasoning.

If Alfred is an authority, then the claim "Whatever Alfred says must be true" is a fallacy. However, if A is an expert in a valid field under discussion, and there is adequate agreement among experts in the field, and there is no evidence of undue bias, then the expert is more likely correct than a non-expert. It's an inductive argument. A valid argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence, however, non-experts rarely have the knowledge or methods to make such arguments — which is why most people rely on expert opinion.

That does not mean not seeking a second opinion (verifying consensus), or not being suspicious of someone with ulterior motives (undue bias). It certainly doesn't mean the evidence doesn't matter (Twain's single-blind reliability test).
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/09/forearmed-with-knowledge.html

In fact, everyone, including scientists, rely on expert opinion in fields outside their own expertise. For instance, a general practitioner might make a referral to an oncologist; or a paleontologist looking for a transitional fossil might confer with a geologist to find exposed strata of the appropriate age; or an accountant might hire a mechanic to work on his car. As you point out, courts rely on expert opinion, and have a methodology for evaluating the reliability of that expert opinion.
#4.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-08 09:03 (Reply)
In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

Galileo

WRT carbon dioxide's contribution to global warming: for sake of argument, assume that CO2 is contributing to global warming and we all decide to reduce emissions. How are we to make up the 10-15% increase in crop yields resulting from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration (that CO2 increases crop yields has been demonstrated repeatedly by falsifiable experimentation)? Human population continues to increase. There is greater danger in treating CO2 as a pollutant than not.
#5 Gordon on 2015-10-07 19:24 (Reply)
Gordon: "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo"

Quite so. An appeal to the evidence is a valid argument to an appeal to authority.

Gordon: How are we to make up the 10-15% increase in crop yields resulting from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration (that CO2 increases crop yields has been demonstrated repeatedly by falsifiable experimentation)?

Don't worry. There's virtually no chance of CO2 returning to preindustrial levels any time soon. Levels of CO2 are expected to continue to increase for decades.
#5.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-08 08:50 (Reply)
The statistics of democracy look Bayesian.

That is, you make a guess (by the voters) then check against the evidence.

If the guess is wrong, and the evidence shows otherwise then the voters will adjust and the next vote will be closer to the truth.

Repeat continually.

This is for a healthy democracy where survival is considered success.
#6 Whitehall on 2015-10-07 20:01 (Reply)
No, you can't vote on truth. It's that simple. A vote among 17th century scientists on whether moving air could support over 700K pounds (a C-5), oxygen could be liquefied and improved coal oil (kerosene) would surely fail. Truth is truth no matter who or how many believe or disbelieve, in science, let alone the "soft" disciplines.
#7 Mark on 2015-10-07 21:24 (Reply)
In most of the sciences most of what is today believed to be true was at some time in the past believed to be untrue by the experts. The opposite is true as well. That is most of what we today believe to be false was at one time believed to be true by the experts. In many cases these flip flops happened numerous times. What is worse is typically when some brilliant scientist bucks the trend and develops a theory that revolutionizes his field ALL of the experts line up and oppose him. The experts are often wrong.
#8 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-10-08 22:59 (Reply)
GoneWithTheWind: The experts are often wrong.

From that do you conclude we should never trust experts, sometimes trust experts, always trust experts? If sometimes, then how do you tell which times to trust an expert?
#8.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-09 06:27 (Reply)
You want to defer to experts or anyone who reinforces what you already believe. I say always question and be skeptical. The experts are often wrong and sometimes intentionally dishonest.
#9 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-10-09 21:38 (Reply)
GoneWithTheWind: You want to defer to experts or anyone who reinforces what you already believe.

Not at all. We're always willing to take a fresh look at the evidence.

GoneWithTheWind: I say always question and be skeptical.

Skepticism is good, but doesn't constitute an actual argument.

GoneWithTheWind: The experts are often wrong and sometimes intentionally dishonest.

Sure. From that do you conclude we should never trust experts, sometimes trust experts, or always trust experts? If sometimes, then how do you tell which times to trust an expert?
#9.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-10 10:51 (Reply)
"Skepticism is good, but doesn't constitute an actual argument."

If the argument is that we should trust the experts than I would say "always question and be skeptical" is not only a "actual argument" It is the only possible logical response. Anyone who would always trust the experts is naïve/ignorant of history.
#10 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-10-10 18:38 (Reply)
GoneWithTheWind: If the argument is that we should trust the experts than I would say "always question and be skeptical" is not only a "actual argument" It is the only possible logical response. Anyone who would always trust the experts is naïve/ignorant of history.

Progress. From that do you conclude we should never trust experts, or sometimes trust experts, or always trust experts? If sometimes, then how do you tell which times to trust an expert?
#10.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-11 09:08 (Reply)
No global warming since 1998. All the "experts" claiming continued global warming were wrong. All the computer models coded by experts were wrong. The experts are often wrong. You would have to be a fool or have a devious mind to simply trust the experts. Now the "experts" are busy changing the historical data to support their positions on global warming because the facts have exposed them as liars. Skepticism is the only logical position to hold when it comes to unproven theories.
#10.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-10-11 10:52 (Reply)
GoneWithTheWind: No global warming since 1998.

That wasn't the question.

GoneWithTheWind: You would have to be a fool or have a devious mind to simply trust the experts.

So the answer is never trust experts. When your child is sick, you treat them yourself by reading about it on Google. How hard can an appendectomy be, after all?
#10.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-11 13:58 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.