Is an appeal to authority a proper justification of knowledge?

[Loudmouth]

Maybe so. If that's the case then my argument is invalid as well. But in that case it only goes to show the difference between moral knowledge and rational knowledge. We can't arrive at moral conclusions using rationality alone. Or "rationality and emphathy" alone. In order to arrive at moral conclusions we have to already have moral assumptions.

Which brings us back to the question of who has the authority to say which assumptions are best, and what is that authority based on.

We could start with the premises that God did create us, and that God is all powerful. However, God being moral does not follow from those premises. Being an all powerful creator deity does not force you to be moral. In fact, human history is full of creator deities who commit immoral acts.

I would suggest that the moral authority that any religion has is based on our own judgement of how moral that religion is. We judge whether deities are moral or not.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

"Appeal to authority" is commonly labeled a logical fallacy. It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. But the question can be raised, "Does such consensus exist?" In many venues, it does. But there are also some that consensus is far from established fact, for example, the AGW debate. Many claim there is consensus. Even so, many professionals in a climate-related venue speak against AGW. Therefore, consensus does not exist, despite the claims to the contrary.

Consensus does not mean "proven," as many would desire it to mean. Consensus simply means more in a profession believe "X" to be true than those who do not believe "X" to be true. Also, consensus cannot be determined among a select few who want to claim superior authority over related disciplines because they believe their education, research and publications to prove them superior. Consensus must come from a broader sampling of many disciplines within the same specialty in order for it to have a ring of authority to it.

Appeals to authority are not valid arguments. By the same token, it is not reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonostrated depth of knowledge, unless one has a similiar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is entirely possible that opinion of a person, institution, or scientific group is wrong. Therefore the authority that such a person os institutions holds does not have any intrinisic bearing on whether the claims those persons or bodies make are true or not.

 

[Loudmouth]

But there are also some that consensus is far from established fact, for example, the AGW debate. Many claim there is consensus. Even so, many professionals in a climate-related venue speak against AGW. Therefore, consensus does not exist, despite the claims to the contrary.

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees. It means that a significant proportion of the experts agree. "Many professionals" is purposefully vague to hide the fact of the significant majority of climatologists who accept AGW.

This graph was taken from a direct survey of climatologists who publish in the field. As you can see, they overwhelmingly agree on AGW, and those who disagree are in the minority.

Survey confirms scientific consensus on human-caused global warming | My view on climate change

Consensus does not mean "proven," as many would desire it to mean. Consensus simply means more in a profession believe "X" to be true than those who do not believe "X" to be true. Also, consensus cannot be determined among a select few who want to claim superior authority over related disciplines because they believe their education, research and publications to prove them superior. Consensus must come from a broader sampling of many disciplines within the same specialty in order for it to have a ring of authority to it.

Citing a consensus is just another way of saying, "I'm not just making this up. Most of the experts conclude this as well." In the end, it is the evidence that either supports or falsifies a theory.

 

[Tree of Life]

Which brings us back to the question of who has the authority to say which assumptions are best, and what is that authority based on.

We could start with the premises that God did create us, and that God is all powerful. However, God being moral does not follow from those premises. Being an all powerful creator deity does not force you to be moral. In fact, human history is full of creator deities who commit immoral acts.

I would suggest that the moral authority that any religion has is based on our own judgement of how moral that religion is. We judge whether deities are moral or not.

Indeed human history is full of what I would consider to be imaginary deities that are grossly immoral. But where did our moral sensitivity come from? It doesn't come from rationality. What are we judging these deities against in order to make accurate moral judgments?

 

[Tree of Life]

Again, an appeal to authority is not an argument. It's a justification for knowledge.

 

[quatona]

Again, an appeal to authority is not an argument. It's a justification for knowledge.

Which, of course, is an argument.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees. It means that a significant proportion of the experts agree.

Hm. Interesting. Seems I saw that somewhere else on this thread.

Consensus does not mean "proven," as many would desire it to mean. Consensus simply means more in a profession believe "X" to be true than those who do not believe "X" to be true.

Yeah, there it is.

"Many professionals" is purposefully vague to hide the fact of the significant majority of climatologists who accept AGW.

Sorry, but there is nothing "significant" about the majority of climatologists who endorse AGW, and in fact they may not even be a majority. Or even very many at all. In 2013, Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal a study showing less than one half of one percent of published papers flatly stated that all post-1950 "global warming" was anthropomorphic. That's considerably less than the 97% claim like Mikey like to throw around.

This graph was taken from a direct survey of climatologists who publish in the field. As you can see, they overwhelmingly agree on AGW, and those who disagree are in the minority.

I'm not going to copy the graph. Anyone who wants to see it can look at your post. However, the graph is a fraud. The questions asked were sent to some 10,000 climate professionals via email. It is true that the survey proved 97% believe in climate change. That is akin to asking them if the sun rises in the morning. Of course the climate is changing. It always changes. Far fewer agreed with the man-made warming question and few of them agree on the details.

Citing a consensus is just another way of saying, "I'm not just making this up. Most of the experts conclude this as well." In the end, it is the evidence that either supports or falsifies a theory.

And as I said in my first post:

... the question can be raised, "Does such consensus exist?" In many venues, it does. But there are also some that consensus is far from established fact, for example, the AGW debate. Many claim there is consensus. Even so, many professionals in a climate-related venue speak against AGW. Therefore, consensus does not exist, despite the claims to the contrary.

... as Legate and his fellow researchers proved.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry, but there is nothing "significant" about the majority of climatologists who endorse AGW, . . .

But there is something significant about a minority who reject AGW?

and in fact they may not even be a majority. Or even very many at all. In 2013, Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal a study showing less than one half of one percent of published papers flatly stated that all post-1950 "global warming" was anthropomorphic.

AGW does not say that all warming is directly due to carbon dioxide release. This is the type of misdirection that people use when they are trying to ignore a consensus. They shift the goalposts.

When climatologists are directly surveyed with direct questions, the overwhelmingly agree that humans have caused warming. Those are the facts.

"Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming."
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Notice that it says the "dominant" driver. You change it to the "only" driver, and then claim that they all disagree with AGW. That's shifting the goalposts.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

But there is something significant about a minority who reject AGW?

As I pointed out, they are probably more near the majority than are the AGW champions.

AGW does not say that all warming is directly due to carbon dioxide release. This is the type of misdirection that people use when they are trying to ignore a consensus. They shift the goalposts.

The ones shifting the goalposts are the ones making your claim. It isn't about CO2 release. It's about "anthropomorphic global warming," and is not limited to a single "greenhouse gas." When studies -- legitimate studies -- are done proving CO2 isn't a problem, the AGWs move on to methane, or carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride ... all of whcih are better heat absorption gases that CO2 but which exist in such minutely small numbers int he atmosphere as to be inconsequential. But AGWs will never tell that to the general public. They prefer being alarmist rather than factual in "winning the argument" -- something they are not doing.

When climatologists are directly surveyed with direct questions, the overwhelmingly agree that humans have caused warming. Those are the facts.

Well, heck, post one of those surveys then! Let's get this over will.

You can't. Because you can find one that isn't slanted and biased in how the questions is presented. This:

"Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming."

... is not one. Despite making that claim, an actual read of the survey does not give any indication that so many climatologists as the survey claims actually believe that the majority of climate change is human-caused. Also, the survey is heavily weighted toward published climatologists vs. non-published. The vast majority of published papers support AGW, yet this very same journal rejected the peer-reviewed studies of Legate when he followed up his analysis of published papers with a rather large sampling of data as analyzed by a cross-section of published and non-published researchers that reflected the same dichotomy between what publications like EST Journal claim, vs. what is actual fact among researchers.

Since your link failed, I'll provide one that does work: Scientists views abouot attribution of global warming. I note you quote only a portion of the abstract. The rest of the abstract is quite telling, perhaps unintentionally revealing their bias. It seems the Environmental Science and Technology Journal deems its own membership too stupid to see through hyperbole.

Notice that it says the "dominant" driver. You change it to the "only" driver, and then claim that they all disagree with AGW. That's shifting the goalposts.

Not me. EST Journal, for sure. Why? Read the actual survey and you will realize, if you are intellectually honest, that the abstract doesn't match the actual finding. They counted on everyone ready only the abstract.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

"Appeal to authority" is commonly labeled a logical fallacy. It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. But the question can be raised, "Does such consensus exist?" In many venues, it does. But there are also some that consensus is far from established fact, for example, the AGW debate. Many claim there is consensus. Even so, many professionals in a climate-related venue speak against AGW. Therefore, consensus does not exist, despite the claims to the contrary.
...

I'm not sure what's going on today, but I do know that a couple of decades ago (roughly) many of the "scientists" who worked for the tobacco companies, "proving" that tobacco had no negative side effects, were hired to "prove" that climate change was a hoax.

The overwhelming majority of scientists whose field of study is the climate agree that mankind is affecting the climate.

There will never be 100% consensus, but when one side of a debate has the overwhelming support of the scientists involved, I personally believe it is prudent to side with the overwhelming support.