Experts dismissed because they're a minority

This is actually a two-part question.

Two people were arguing about 9/11, and one said that 3,000 architects had declared there was something fishy about they collapse of the World Trade Center.

Person X says that's a joke because 3,000 architects amount to .001% of the population.

Regardless of what your beliefs about 9/11 are, that's an obviously stupid line of reasoning. Should we ignore the advice of heart surgeons because they're also a tiny minority?

Question: What kind of fallacy is this?

Part II

When I saw the discussion, I called foul, pointing out that the theory of evolution was "discovered" by just two people. And since two is an obvious minority, we should have just ignored them.

Person X replied that my comment was meaningless, because Darwin-Lamark's ideas were proved by science, whereas the claims of 3,000 engineers weren't.

What kind of fallacy is this?

Thanks.

This would be an invalid sample . Not really a fallacy per se, but it could fall under non-sequitur . The implicit claim is that the general population's knowledge on a topic is just as/more reliable an indicator of truth than the experts'.

Just an addendum to this, we need to make sure that we are only considering the experts' information within their area of expertise. For example, if my doctor tells me that, in his experience, the pharmaceutical companies act unethically (then proceeds to give several examples), although anecdotal, this would be considered "expert opinion" and in terms of evidence, it is of a higher value than a non-expert making the same claim. Now if this doctor then proceeded to tell me that vaccines are a hoax, then they are extending their claim outside of their area of expertise (they are ignoring the science and statistics and not using scientific methodology). Likewise, if X number of architects (X being a decent percentage of the architects that have studied the matter) say there was something fishy about the WTC building collapse, we should take that information seriously. However, if they conclude the "9/11 was in inside job" then they are now making claims outside their area of expertise (there are many other areas of expertise required to come to this conclusion).

Part II

I don't think it would be accurate to say that the theory of evolution was discovered by two people. Like most scientific theories, they are a collection of thoughts and ideas from great thinkers and scientists over the ages. But your point is understood, and it can be argued that one or two people are mostly responsible for our current understanding of the theory (which is why you might have put "discovered" in quotes). Anyway...

Person X claimed that your argument could be dismissed because it was from a minority (number wise).
You pointed out that one of the most well-established scientific theories of all time came from a just two people.
Person X rejects the analogy because one example is scientific and one is not.

Person X has a point here. There is some equivocation on your part. The idea that "architects had declared there was something fishy about they collapse of the World Trade Center" is not a scientific theory; it is more of a professional opinion or observation. A scientific theory, such as evolution, can be falsified among many other things. Most important, scientists are trained in scientific methodology to attempt to falsify a theory; non-scientific experts have no such training.

Hope that helps. Perhaps others will chime in with some more ideas.

This question goes to the heart of what is meant by "intelligence". The problem with defining intelligence is immense and, how even to define intelligence has been debated for thousands of years.

For example, who is more intelligent, a great musician or great painter with little or no formal education or, a highly educated scientist bought and paid for by corporations to deny human pollution is causing climate change?

Who is more intelligent, Martin Luther King, Jr., who promoted and practiced non-violent resistance or, all of the founders of the United States combined, who promoted and used violence as a means to an end, primarily because they were pissed off at paying what some modern historians conclude where fair and just taxes, arguably far more fair and just than the taxes we pay today?

Who is more intelligent, an uneducated Aborigine in the Australian Outback who is able to survive where there is apparently no food or water or Charles Darwin, who would likely perish in the same situation?

Or, if we are to believe Charles Darwin, who is more intelligent, an uneducated Bolivian farmer with 13 children or Neil DeGrasse Tyson and the vast majority of modern scientists, who have less direct offspring?

Who is more intelligent, Jesus, who apparently had no offspring and no form of what is today considered to be advanced education and yet is credited by Albert Schweitzer, MLK, Rosa Parks and the vast majority of the key figures of the modern American Civil Rights Movement and millions of others throughout human history with inspiring their own human rights efforts or, the entire MENSA Society, self-anointed mental midgets of the modern educated elite, some of whom have worked for the American war machine and otherwise, promote violence and the greed of modern capitalism as a means to an end?

Or, who is more intelligent, Helen Keller, who was deaf, mute and blind and yet is considered to be both a radical socialist and one of the most intelligent and greatest Americans, or Richard Dawkins, whose scientific "expertise" is in human and animal behavior and yet, offers no rational explanation for why many modern scientists and others with advanced degrees in education continue to develop nuclear, biological and worse weaponry and otherwise, mass pollute the fragile planet of their own offspring?

Apparently there is far more to intelligence and just who is and is not an "expert" than meets the casual eye, who can say for sure?

I would like to know how many architects said something was fishy and how many said nothing fishy. How many is 3000 architects compared to the total number of architects in the US or in the world? This reminds me of a creationist stunt in which they got 100 biologists to sign a document saying that evolution was a hoax. The scientific community responded with a parody list of scientists named only Steve, to honor Stephen Jay Gould, who out numbers the creationist list of scientists doubting evolution.

The opinions of architects compared to unexpert general population is unimportant. The opinions of architects compared to other architects is important. If 3000 architects were 95 percent of total architects, then 95 percent of architects believe something fishy happened. I doubt this though. There must be way more than 3000 architects in the US. I just did a google search there are 109000 in the US. That means 3000 architects is 2.9 percent of total architects.


-Jacob