Is this statement fallacious?

I recently got into a debate, in which I was told this:

"You could give me 1,000 studies by Ph.D. holding scientists telling me something is true, and I wouldn't believe you because I'll find you 1,000 more telling you the opposite."

Is there a fallacy here and what is the name of it?

Belief is a two edged sword - either True or False.
Human thinking swings between these two.
Put simply, human think that if they have beliefs they are able to think.
So the question is not about belief.
It is about whether you KNOW how to think????
Remember: you can believe anything you want to: that the sun is up there or down here.

Belief has nothing to do with THINKING! CAN YOU THINK ABOUT IT?????
Ignatius Udunuwara.

It sounds similar to a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. He is cherry picking the data that suits his argument and ignoring any that contradicts it. The proper thing to do is examine the evidence for both sides and try to evaluate the credibility of each, but it sounds like he has no interest in doing that.

Appeal to authority maybe but you would have to know what the subject is the scientists are claiming to be true. Helium rises in Earths lower atmosphere is scientific and obviously proven. A wolf evolved into a killer whale or vice versa isn't scientific its conjecture based on a worldview not a tested and repeated observation or predictive outcome.

Basically without more information it is an 'argument from authority.' It would be possible to find 1,000 thousand atheist that would provide a coherent argument against the existence of God, and than find 1,000 theist apologists to provide an argument for the existence of God.. It is the substance of the argument that is the issue, and not the avalanche of experts that determines the validity of the argument.

Strikes me as a glaring non sequitur. No subject matter nor arguments are presented and there is only the ‘boast’ of an equivalent number of Phds’ refutation, falsely equating to equivalent wisdom (i.e., which constitutes the non sequitur). As presented, it is pure braggadocio/balderdash.

I would note parenthetically that I’ve been in boardrooms where Phds have lined up on opposite sides of arguments (usually regarding funding of projects or acquisitions). It’s not the number of PHds that wins the day (decision ultimately made by CEO or Capital Committee) but purely the strength of respective arguments, which (aghast!) may even come from non-Phds!

Learning is accumulating INFORMATION - from BA's to PhD's.One specialises in an area of information in some logical manner.
Knowledge is in the MIND???? IU

The question appears to support the fallacy of "an appeal to authority." I say this because the power of a claim does not come from who makes the claim, but rather the rationale, logic, and data supporting the claim. A simple statement from a PhD. carrying individual that something is true or false carries little weight. Instead, assessing the plausibility of the claim based on the supporting evidence for it carries far greater weight...

I would first call this statement a general misunderstanding of the scientific process and an exaggeration . There is an element of truth to the statement—academics (even of science) often come to different conclusions given the same data. But such a split (50/50) on an issue where 1000's of studies have been done is extremely rare, or the "conclusions" are highly generalized such as "sugar is bad for you" vs. "sugar is not that bad for you."

I would also agree that the statement contains a fallacy... as others pointed out, the argument from authority . "Ph.D. holding scientists" means very little in this context unless the PhD is in the field of the research having to do with the claim being made. I am a PhD holding scientist, but my PhD in social psychology does not make my opinion on nuclear physics any more valid.

It's a Red Herring, so what if he can find the opposite views being held by a PHD. Show one PHD who opposes the argument.