Analyzing the Appeal to Consensus

Bill writes:

I think you're speculating on a broad range of unrelated issues.

Scientists (and other experts) judge evidence by the standards of their specialties. However, people who don't understand the complexities of a science need to rely on the opinions held by the largest number of the most qualified scientists or experts. That's imperfect, but it's not a fallacy. 

Yes, scientists can sometimes be corrupted or misinterpreted. That's why I use Google Scholar and look up the actual reports that the scientists themselves have written. That way I can avoid filters. I also look at their funding sources, which are reported in the scientific journal articles. 

Science is always open to revision as new evidence becomes known. 

It's good to be careful, but not good to be cynical. Have a great day. 

David Blomstrom writes:

[To Bill]

I'm not speculating on anything.

When I type fallacy + "appeal to consensus" into Google, I get 250,000 hits. That tells me there really is a fallacy called appeal to consensus.

If this is an authentic fallacy, then there must be authentic examples of this fallacy. I would like to know how some of those authentic examples are classified.

"Yes, scientists can sometimes be corrupted or misinterpreted."

BINGO. You're getting warm. However, my question isn't limited to scientists. Phony marketing surveys can be falsely advertised as consensuses as well.

It's better to be cynical than to put your trust in Google Scholar. Have a great day.

Bill writes:
[To WebRanger]

250,000 hits? At first blush, that sounds like the fallacy of appeal to popularity, doesn't it? 

Seriously, although there is a valid point buried in your analysis, remember that logic depends on precise definitions of terms. Would you like to work on that? 

Note that people do lie about expert consensus. That's not a fallacy of consensus; it's just lying. For example, a news show might say that there is a scientific consensus about some topic, when, in fact, there is no such consensus. That's not a logical error; it's just lying. 

David Blomstrom writes:
[To Bill]

"250,000 hits? At first blush, that sounds like the fallacy of appeal to popularity, doesn't it?"

No, that's not a fallacy at all. That's a simple statement. Anyone can type those same search terms into Google and get the same results (though the results will presumably vary somewhat from time to time). 

"Seriously, although there is a valid point buried in your analysis, remember that logic depends on precise definitions of terms. Would you like to work on that?"

I'd prefer that you work on your comprehension skills.

"Note that people do lie about expert consensus. That's not a fallacy of consensus; it's just lying. For example, a news show might say that there is a scientific consensus about some topic, when, in fact, there is no such consensus. That's not a logical error; it's just lying."

I'm not interested in lies. I'm interested in actual fallacies, specifically involving the appeal to consensus.

Since you apparently don't have a clue about fallacy or logic, it would probably be best if you just get lost and let people who do have a clue reply to my question, assuming there's any interest. And if there's no interest, then one has to wonder what kind of forum this is.

Bill writes:
[To WebRanger]

1. Please refrain from the ad hominem attacks. Thank you.

2. I've published research articles about fallacies, so I probably know at least something.

3. For the rest, you might want to re-read your original post. Have you missed your own point? Thanks! 

David Blomstrom writes:
[To Bill]

"1. Please refrain from the ad hominem attacks. Thank you."

Tu Quoque . You need to refrain from spewing BS (and rather obvious insults). You've posted three or four times and haven't contributed anything to this dicussion.

"2. I've published research articles about fallacies, so I probably know at least something."

Really? Please share your last name and some links to your "research articles." I'm afraid I don't trust people who pose as experts on the Internet but only call themselves "Bill."

"3. For the rest, you might want to re-read your original post. Have you missed your own point? Thanks!"

Let's start with the first sentence...

I'm exploring the appeal to consensus and would like to make a list of fallacies it incorporates or is related to.

The words "the appeal to consensus" tell us which fallacy I'm interested in. Can you guess which one it is?

The words "list of fallacies" are a pretty good clue that I'm interested in the fallacious use of this particular fallacy.

If all of that goes over your head, I then mention "cherry picking" and "ambiguity" in the examples. Those are very popular fallacies. If you've actually published research papers, they should be familiar to you.

If all of this is too difficult for your mind to grasp, or if you simply have no interest in my question, that's perfectly fine. If you're just bored, may I suggest going for a walk or searching for fallacies on Facebook?

Have a nice day.

Citizen Irrelevant writes:

[To Bill]

You note that logic depends upon precise terminology, and then write:

 a news show might say that there is a scientific consensus about some topic, when, in fact, there is no such consensus. That's not a logical error; it's just lying. 

How about "misinformation", or even "disinformation"?

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

I am not sure what you are asking and judging by the other responses I don't think others are either. Are you asking how some people use the "appeal to consensus" fallacy erroneously? That is, they claim fallacy when it is really not?

One thing to keep in mind is that there is a legitimate appeal to consensus and a fallacious one. Perhaps you are asking in which ways is appealing to a consensus legitimate and in which ways it is fallacious? This would actually be a good reference to make.

David Blomstrom writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Sorry, I thought the examples I listed made it clear that I'm focusing on the FALLACIOUS use of the appeal to consensus.

I was struck by the fact that a fallacious appeal to consensus can overlap with a really wide variety of fallacies, and I thought it would be interesting to try and make a list of them.

Bill writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Right on!

Bill writes:

Let's try again:

Let me suggest some tentative ways to evaluate an appeal to expert consensus:

1. The consensus must be held by recognized experts/specialists in the field.

2. The experts must have specialized training and experience before they can join in an expert consensus. 

3. The consensus must be widely shared among qualified experts. Perhaps we could insist that 90% of recognized experts must share the opinion before we can call it a consensus. 

4. Always be aware that new evidence can appear that could discredit the old consensus, presumably leading to a new consensus. 

Note that it is possible to have a consensus of people who aren't experts. That can be interesting, but I wouldn't want to use it as an argument premise. That just evolves into appeal to popular belief. For example, most people believe that lie detectors are reliable and accurate. So, there is a consensus among the public. However, psychologists have studied lie detection in literally thousands of studies and concluded scientifically that lie detection is woefully inaccurate. 

Interesting twist: many law enforcement officials think that lie detectors are accurate. Aren't they also qualified experts? So we could have two conflicting consensuses between two different groups. Tricky.  

In the news media, the most common error is to violate #2. On Fox News, for example, I have noticed that it is common to hear views from people who are woefully unqualified. A consensus of Fox News pundits would not impress me unless the pundits have independently verified credentials. 

Also, elsewhere in fallacy books (including Dr. Bo's), one can find ways to evaluate experts and authorities. See his chapter on the Appeal to False Authority. 

David Blomstrom writes:
[To Bill]

Let me try again: Can you give us some links to the "research articles" you claim you've written?

Bill writes:

I posted them a few minutes ago. Here we are again. http://harpine.blogspot.com/p/william-d-harpines-publications.html

Or you can search William Harpine Fallacy on https://scholar.google.com

 

 

David Blomstrom writes:
[To Bill]

Thanks. That's very revealing.

David Blomstrom writes:

"Rather than trying to discredit all scientific consensus as fallacious reasoning..."

I'm not trying to discredit all scientific consensus. I'm interested in the FALLACIOUS use of the term. I have a degree in science myself.

"Take climate change, for example."

Sorry, that's a bad example. Climate change is real, and there's presumably an authentic scientific consensus to support it.

"Tip #2: Use fake experts."

Bingo. Like all the corporate operatives who work as lobbyists or are given political posts. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

"Tip #3: Cherry-pick scientific data."

I think I already mentioned cherry picking in my opening question. It's easy to cherry pick experts or conduct polls that only target particular demographic sectors.

"Tip #4: Create unrealistic expectations of the evidence."

Sorry, you're going off on a tangent here.

"Tip #5: Employ logical fallacies."

Actually, I'm interested in knowing how propagandists employ logical fallacies. More precisely, I'm interested in knowing which fallacies intersect with the appeal to consensus. There is a lot of overlap between various fallacies.

"Straw men, red herrings, false analogies: all of these are your friends."

Actually, your entire post looks like one big red herring. Not surprising, since I think I recall you as the guy who said you're a big fan of Michael Shermer.

I'm interested in hearing from more rational people who actually understand my question and don't feel compelled to embark on a wacko anti-conspiracy rant.