What is this logical fallacy called?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
What kind of logical fallacy would the following statement be classified as?
"Tens of thousands of scientists have said X for over a thousand years, therefore X must be true."
While supplying no evidence for their claim.
I figure it could be appeal to common belief or argument by consensus, but I have another, more specific one at the tip of my tongue. It falls in line with the statement "trust the experts"
Thanks in advance,
Russ
Comments on Question
On the surface this would appear to be appeal to authority . However, this usually requires the person to rely on a single expert, or a small group, since they're more easily swayed by personal opinion, and you can find a singular expert who agrees with you on a lot of things.
But, if you cite the fact that an overwhelming majority of experts on a topic believe something is true, that's actually a pretty good argument. Experts will almost always have access to more data, be better at interpreting it, and will have debated the merits of an idea before accepting it. It doesn't guarantee that the conclusion is true, but that the opinion is much more well-considered than a non-expert opinion ever could be.
Practically speaking, I think rejecting this argument will lead you to an incorrect conclusion more often than accepting it. You quite often see people who want to deny climate change, evolution, or the fact that the Earth is round, start off with this claim to get a listener to believe their conclusion is plausible. Then, they'll present distorted or cherry picked data that an expert would be able to pick apart, but a non-expert wouldn't necessarily have the knowledge to see through. Likewise, a non-expert who trusts expert consensus may not have a deep enough understanding to counter these arguments.
Answers
3It would be known as the appeal to authority fallacy. All though, since science is a evidence based methodology and if the statement is true that thing X has been a scientific consensus for a 1000 years then I'm sure there must be some kind of evidence for it and that it probably wouldn't be hard to find by doing some research into the research of thing X.
You are more likely to commit the fallacy if you are appealing to the lone wolf scientist who is against the scientific consensus, especially if it's just his opinion where he did not write any peer reviewed research papers on the topic proving his opinions with evidence.
It's far more unlikely that you'd be committing the fallacy by appealing to a consensus of all the scientific authorities, bc there is vast amounts of independent corroborating evidence for such positions as a long standing scientific consensus of scientific research.
Before trusting an expert, one must determine whether the expert’s claims are valid. This is true whether it is one expert or a million. At one point, for thousands of years, all experts believed the earth was flat. So, you need to know more than an expert’s conclusion. You need to know why.
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.
I find it common for two scientists with good credentials to examine the same facts and come to different conclusions. So how do you know which one is right? You have to test the testimony. Otherwise, all you have is a one-sided monologue.
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 would be imprisoned or killed to suggest otherwise.
But there is an issue beyond the experts. Even if an expert is correct in what the expert claims within his field of expertise, it can still lead to tragedy. This is because each specialized group sees an ever-shrinking piece of the more giant puzzle of life and focuses on what is minutiae when analyzing the situation as a whole., i.e., the Big Picture. What is a reasonable course of action within their narrow field of expertise, is not reasonable when viewed as a part of the Big Picture.
The world learned this, for example, during the Covid pandemic. Virologists were concerned only with the virus and not the more significant effects on human life. As a result, the cure became worse than the disease.
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 experts claim to base their conclusion (opinion). The evidence that scientists bring to the table is critically important — not their conclusions — otherwise, you have abnegated your mind to theirs.
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Majority
Well, you know, a thousand Frenchmen can't be wrong! Haha! It's kind of a twofer: An ad populum appeal to authority.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Whether or not the person making the claim supplies evidence or not, if it's true that thousands of scientists have been saying X for however many years, there will be a case put forward by the scientists for that claim. However, if there is a minority of scientists and other independent researchers who refute the claim, their refutation needs to be addressed.
This is where the term "conspiracy theorist" is exposed as so terribly wrong. Scientists who challenge what they believe to be scientific dogma are not "conspiracy theorists", they are scientists challenging what is put forward as science and they may not believe any conspiracy has actually occurred in what they believe is false having come to be accepted, they may think it's just somehow become accepted because a certain person or group of people's thinking on a subject has dominated and taken hold. And even if they do think the dogma is the result of a conspiracy that is not their main concern, their concern is only to correct what they believe is wrong.