Dismissal of peer reviewed papers as Appeal To Authority
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I present a journal published peer reviewed paper. The other person claims it is an appeal to authority. He further says that any experiments I have not done myself is an appeal to authority and will be dismissed.
I run into this over and over again.
Mike
Comments on Question
I think it safely can be said that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding how science works, as well as claims derived from the use of scientific methods. Any scientist who claims that they are right about something with no possibility of error is to be looked upon with suspicion. Generally, the correct scientific attitude is, "I think I am correct, but there is always the possibility that I may not be and I am open to being corrected."
Being outright dismissive is not correct, nor is merely embracing claims blindly. The safest bet it to adhere to the overall consensus on a topic, but even that can change overt time, so skepticism is always at work. This is how knowledge grows over time.
Do they have a criticism of what's said in the paper, though? If so, what is your response to that criticism?
I have to say I don't particularly rely on consensus or peer review, my preference is to follow the debunking trail. What does Expert B say in response to Expert A's paper and what is Expert A's response to Expert B's criticism if any? As a non-expert it's very difficult to evaluate material directly but with guidance by criticism it's much easier. Of course, a critic may be in error but if they are then we would expect the person they're criticising to defend against that error.
I don't believe a lot of what's put out by scientists now but even when I did and felt that "science" was perfectly trustworthy I still followed the debunking trail. As soon as I heard about man-made climate change I was predisposed to accept it as I remembered learning at school about CO2 being a trace gas in the atmosphere that kept us warm so it made sense to me that if you muck around with something that has a significant effect at a trace level (like, say, iron in the blood) it's reasonable to expect problems will arise. However, even though I felt science was perfectly trustworthy and I thought what the climate scientists were saying sounded perfectly reasonable I gave the other side a go. I looked at what they said and what the climate scientists had to say in response ... the climate scientists always seemed to win easily.
Cannot say the same for other subjects though, not at all, in the case of certain other subjects I think the debunkers win ... and the thing is they are not responded to - the debunking trail ends with them, that's the clear indicator of their rightness apart from the fact that their criticism seems perfectly valid.
Answers
3In a sense the other person is right to be dismissive. I can present you all sorts of nonsense found in "published peer reviewed papers." This is because a) there exist many journals with very low standards b) "peers" in these journals are often just activists who support an ideological position and c) even given the most esteemed journals, one paper is not enough to establish any kind of truth, (although it can be used as evidence for a claim). Case in point: There is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to young earth creationism.
You would be better using scientific consensus than presenting a single paper. Non-scientists are egregiously wrong when they trust their own "scientific expertise" over the vast body of actual scientific professionals. It takes both reason and humility to defer to admit that one is far less capable of understanding the body of literature in a specialized field (e.g., immunology, virology, cosmology, etc.) then the vast majority (strong scientific consensus) of tens of thousands of scientists specializing in the respective field.
However, referring to a paper is not an authority, thus not an appeal to an authority. When one references the literature (peer-reviewed journals), they are actually referencing the evidence found in the research, not the people who conducted the research.
He further says that any experiments I have not done myself is an appeal to authority and will be dismissed.
This is just incorrect. The person is conflating an authority with knowledge. For example, it is not an appeal to authority when one opens up a medical textbook to show where the spleen is located. It is unreasonable to suggested that unless the person has dissected a human body themselves, their claim to the location of the spleen is fallacious. This is the rejection of knowledge, which is known as denialism, and a whole other problem.
To quote Tommy Boy's dad, "I'll tell you what, you can get a good look at a t-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it." Likewise, you can have a good understanding of a specific field in science by getting a PhD in the field and spending your life doing experiments, but you're better off taking the scientists' word for it. Deferring to expertise and authority is generally a good heuristic even though not often persuasive in argumentation.
Peer reviewed papers are not an argument from authority fallacy because they have backed up with evidence. The whole point of a peer revered science paper is to show the evidence or results of your study and you tell what those results were. An argument from authority fallacy happens when an authority makes claims without showing evidence for it.
I'll add my two cents to the other comments here. You not only don't need to do all the experiments yourself --- but you couldn't. So, look at the paper and examine it with the scientific method in mind to see if it provides the evidence to support the proposition under discussion.
The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
If you can reliably replicate the results, the category of the subject under study advances from hypothesis to theory. Then use the results (the feedback step) to make a new question, form new hypotheses and predictions. All sciences use the scientific method. The scientists in different fields, of course, ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence. The purpose of a test experiment is to determine whether empirical observations agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from the hypothesis.
What we reasonably seek is epistemological certainty, that is to say, the conclusion is based upon the available evidence.
Before trusting an expert, one must determine whether the expert’s claims are valid. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of bias or conflict of interest.
We cannot have a rule by experts, as all too many examples provide. There was a time, for example, when “all” the scientists believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. You do not need to be an expert in the field under discussion, but you do need to examine the evidence and the process upon which the expert claims to base his conclusion (opinion). It is the evidence that a scientist brings to the table that is critically important — not his conclusion — otherwise you have abnegated your mind to theirs.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
If they don't have a rebuttal I don't really understand why they would expect you to pay attention to their claim. Come on, you need at least an attempt at a rebuttal.
All I do is argue with people and it does drive me crazy ... but then it helps me refine my thoughts. This is now what I'd say about what we should believe science-wise.
The consensus of scientists stands ... until someone comes along (no matter who) and presents a cogent debunking ... that is not responded to. What happens though is that the cogent debunking is often ignored and not responded to or if it's responded to it's only responded to once and when that response is responded to once more the defender of the consensus argument drops out. What people fail to appreciate is that volumes upon volumes can be written about a subject where the claims made can be punctured so very, very easily. What people are also misled to believe is that now we have the "scientific method" and we have "peer-reviewed journals" what scientists say, what the consensus say MUST be right but what is painfully obvious is that maverick scientists and other knowledgeable people have presented cogent criticisms of what is said by the consensus and have simply been ignored.
Ultimately, science is always about WHAT not WHO. We can never get away from that fact, it's always WHAT not WHO.
If we look at history we can see so many instances of knowledge held by a small minority being ignored, for example, I picked up a book on scurvy which I regret not reading. In the first couple of pages it mentioned that the cure for scurvy was known well before it became generally accepted, even centuries before I believe. It could be that there was no particular cure that was thought to work generally - even if obviously it didn't - I don't know but what we know absolutely is that knowledge can be held by a minority of people that isn't recognised by the majority.