if you're arguing on science, an appeal to authority or popularity usually is an admission of defeat. just sayin...

8/8/2013 6:34:53 PM

i don't think that counts if you're appealing to individuals more knowledgable than you

8/8/2013 6:37:12 PM

I would normally agree, but the focus as it is often used isn't normally just "these guys are smarter than you." Instead, it's "there's a lot of these guys". Even then, I'd say it's still not the strongest argument to appeal to authority in a field where the evidence, itself, is supposed to rule the day.

8/8/2013 6:46:29 PM

It's not an appeal to authority when your authority is a large sampling of subject matter experts.

Just sayin...

8/8/2013 11:20:01 PM

I'm not follow what is being discussed but I can say burro is saying nothing that makes sense.

[Edited on August 9, 2013 at 12:18 AM. Reason : !]

8/9/2013 12:17:47 AM

This hits me at my emotional core:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/environment/energy/expert-starved-polar-bear-died-due-record-low-ice-levels

8/9/2013 12:29:10 AM

Quote :

"It's not an appeal to authority when your authority is a large sampling of subject matter experts."

That's not how Rethug logic works, they only give a pass to religious leaders and Koch-funded think tanks.

8/9/2013 7:08:31 AM

Quote :

"It's not an appeal to authority when your authority is a large sampling of subject matter experts. Just sayin..."

This has been said to aaronburro at least 10 times on this message board. It doesn't register. He believes that the scientists of the world are all involved in a massive conspiracy to not win Nobel Prizes.

8/9/2013 9:01:14 AM

Quote :

"http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/environment/energy/expert-starved-polar-bear-died-due-record-low-ice-levels"

While sad, maybe you should take heart in knowing that polar bear populations are currently the highest they've been in over 60 years. To say their numbers are declining couldn't be further from the truth.

8/9/2013 9:38:40 AM

^Care to share what you base that on?
I;m not sure how credible this link is, feel free to discredit it:

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming

Quote :

"Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren't their populations increasing: in fact, booming? A: One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.* ... ... *For a fascinating look at where this widely repeated myth comes from, read "Magic Number: A sketchy 'fact' about polar bears keeps going … and going .. and going" by Peter Dykstra, published in the Society of Environmental Journalists' SEJournal."

[Edited on August 9, 2013 at 9:43 AM. Reason : ]

8/9/2013 9:43:17 AM

Yeah no problem. There can be some confusion about this due to the variety of ways there are to calculate the population. This is the most up to date info I've read, and of note, it's mainly about Canada's polar bears.

Quote :

"Exciting news about polar bears in eastern Canada: the peer-reviewed paper on the Davis Strait subpopulation study has finally been published (Peacock et al. 2013). It concludes that despite sea ice having declined since the 1970s, polar bear numbers in Davis Strait have not only increased to a greater density (bears per 1,000 km2) than other seasonal-ice subpopulations (like Western Hudson Bay), but it may now have reached its ‘carrying capacity.’"

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/06/10/signs-that-davis-strait-polar-bears-are-at-carrying-capacity/

8/9/2013 1:41:26 PM

Quote :

"It's not an appeal to authority when your authority is a large sampling of subject matter experts. "

so, it's not appealing to authority if you pick the right authority. riiiiiiight. Regardless, you missed the point.

Quote :

"This has been said to aaronburro at least 10 times on this message board. It doesn't register. He believes that the scientists of the world are all involved in a massive conspiracy to not win Nobel Prizes."

Stop with that strawman. I've said no such thing.

8/9/2013 9:11:48 PM

wrong

8/9/2013 9:12:53 PM

since mods don't give a fuck about blatant trolling, I'm just going to post this every time you troll.

8/9/2013 9:16:38 PM

It's amazing. Aaronburro literally has no idea what an appeal to authority is.

8/9/2013 9:18:00 PM

enlighten me. Because "these people know more than you so they are unquestionably right" sure sounds like it...

8/9/2013 9:56:02 PM

you're trying to dispute thousands and thousands of scientists? The vast majority of scientists?

not politicians, millionaires or movies stars. We're talking about Scientists?

sure, some of the scientists have ulterior motives, but do your really think they're all in on the conspiracy?

8/9/2013 10:57:55 PM

and you're appealing to popularity, which suggest you're talking ideology and not science.

8/9/2013 11:12:26 PM

He's not appealing to popularity. He's appealing to the consensus of subject matter experts, which is pretty much the exact opposite of an appeal to authority.

You'd probably find a 5 minute visit to Wikipedia beneficial.

8/10/2013 4:11:48 AM

Already did. Maybe you should do the same. You'll find that it says that appealing a vast array of experts doesn't mean you are right, which is what God was trying to imply.

8/10/2013 7:07:59 PM

If the authority has mass peer review, rigorous testing, complete and utter disgrace for being wrong, and Nobel Prizes for upturning the status quo, then yes, you can appeal to it.

That's the difference when referring to scientific consensus. Science methodology is inherently better suited for weeding out misinformation than any other.

8/10/2013 9:09:34 PM

Quote :

"If the authority has mass peer review, rigorous testing, complete and utter disgrace for being wrong, and Nobel Prizes for upturning the status quo, then yes, you can appeal to it. That's the difference when referring to scientific consensus. Science methodology is inherently better suited for weeding out misinformation than any other."

wait... what viewpoint are you trying to support with this mantra?

8/10/2013 9:25:56 PM

I know, right? Mann's hockey stick fails on all of those points, lol

8/10/2013 10:20:02 PM

Quote :

"wait... what viewpoint are you trying to support with this mantra? "

That deferring to the consensus of the massive majority of scientists that specialize in the field of climatology is not a fucking appeal to authority or appeal to the majority.

[Edited on August 10, 2013 at 10:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2013 10:58:01 PM

Quote :

"Already did. Maybe you should do the same. You'll find that it says that appealing a vast array of experts doesn't mean you are right, which is what God was trying to imply."

It doesn't matter if the expert consensus is incorrect. It still wouldn't be an incorrect appeal to authority.

8/11/2013 12:14:32 AM

Quote :

"I know, right? Mann's hockey stick fails on all of those points, lol"

see if we just attack a single graph and ignore the numerous subsequent independent graphs that corroborate its major conclusion, we'll tear down the whole edifice of science and keep the Koch brothers satisfied

because Mann's hockey-stick graph is like the fucking Book of Genesis to climate scientists, right?

o wait

8/11/2013 12:48:42 AM

^ never comment on a single issue regarding science again.

"Right Answer" + wrong method != good science. if it was a horrible study (and it has been proven so), then its a horrible study and should be called out as such, no matter what its conclusion or how that fits in with your ideology. When anti-AGW people post shit for studies, I'm happy to call them out as shit, because that's how science advances.

8/12/2013 10:37:33 PM

You are the worst.

Literally. The. Worst.

8/12/2013 11:02:16 PM

Is it your contention that "but I got the right answer" makes it good science? I'm just curious

8/13/2013 12:06:08 AM

ITT people don't know what peer review is

8/13/2013 12:11:12 AM

What say you, God? If other people agree with my findings, does that make my study "good science", no matter how I derived it?

It's also funny, because Mann doesn't know what peer review is, other than "passes my rubber stamp test of being pro-AGW". Just check his emails, if he hasn't deleted them (you know, a hallmark of scientific integrity and ethics, destroying data)

8/13/2013 12:18:45 AM

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-rep-global-warming-is-a-total-fraud-plot-to-institute-global-government/

8/13/2013 7:20:31 AM

^^wow, you actually don't know what peer review means. that explains a lot.

peer review is not simply people agreeing with findings

8/13/2013 7:21:43 AM

Quote :

"Is it your contention that "but I got the right answer" makes it good science? I'm just curious"

Process makes good science.

I don't expect you to have a clue about what I just said.

8/13/2013 3:33:43 PM