Scientific Consensus IS an Appeal to Authority
An effort has been made by anti-science fans/atheists to value up authority and incredulity and de-value scientific evidence, empirical observations, and valid reasoning.
In order to do this modern day scientists are trying to re-define the definition of science so that all that matters is authority and incredulity, rather than actual scientific evidence, empirical observations, and valid reasoning.
The scientific consensus (what scientists believe) is an appeal to authority unless the consensus view is directly accompanied by scientific evidence, empirical observations, and valid reasoning.
In other words what authority figures say or believe isn’t equivalent to scientific evidence that something is true.
The scientific consensus is an appeal to authority + argument ad populum in one.
The way that you determine whether or not a hypothesis is true or false in science is by empirically testing the hypothesis, not by looking at what authority figures say or believe.
Examples of when the Scientific Consensus is an Appeal to Authority:
– Authority figures reject an experiment that contradicts previously accepted notions even though the experiment has been replicated and has stood up to criticism and scrutiny
– 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will, therefore free-will exists
– 87% of scientists believe evolution is due to undirected processes, therefore evolution occurred through undirected processes
– Authority figures accept the String Theory as “science” even though it matches the definition of pseudoscience
– The majority of physicists accept the Copenhagen-Interpretation as true, therefore it must be true (there’s no empirical evidence distinguishing which interpretation of the double-slit experiment is true)
– Many physicists believe in multiple universes, therefore they must exist (there’s no empirical evidence supporting multiple universes)
– There is no consensus on “X” subject even though there’s lots of scientific evidence telling us whether or not it’s true or false
The scientific consensus is often used by evolutionists as great evidence, this is because evolutionists know how extremely weak and fragile the evidence on evolution is so they always change the subject away from evidence and towards authority and incredulity.
Evolutionists know how weak of a theory evolution is so they are trying to stop people from questioning, criticizing, or scrutinizing evolution like they would with any other scientific theory. If a statement really is true will stand up to any amount of criticism so what are evolutionists so afraid of?
If we go strictly by evidence only evolution is the weakest theory in modern science, weaker than General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, chemistry, the evidence telling us there’s no free-will, time-measurement, gravity, etc….but the media has come out to protect evolution like a religious belief rather than treating it the same as any other scientific theory.
Professors who criticize evolution are often heavily attacked by the atheist-controlled media, but professors who believe in free-will, doubt the evidence on General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, gravity, or any other theory in science are very rarely ever attacked by the atheist-controlled media. It really shows you how well-protected evolution is.
Almost all of the “evidence” in evolution is imaginations and speculations (the very very weakest forms of evidence), it’s not even a real scientific theory, it’s a real science fiction story.
The attitude in the atheist-controlled media is that you’re allowed to be unscientific if you’re not criticizing evolution, but not allowed to be scientific if you are criticizing evolution.
I’ve read lots of unscientific junk in peer-reviewed journals, it really shows you how authority and incredulity matters more than actual scientific evidence and empiricism.
The scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is literally a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution, no amount of evolutionary biologists believing otherwise changes this.
Since 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will we know with 100% certainty that they don’t care about evidence or value evidence or understand science, the reason why they believe in evolution has nothing to do with evidence. Biologists in general don’t understand anything about science and are unintelligent.
Even worse free-will believers usually use non-determinism as evidence of free-will but non-determinism falsifies evolution, ROFL!!!
Authority figures saying something or believing something will never be equivalent to scientific evidence.
Science will never be determined by polls, what authority figures believe, etc….but always by empirical observations, scientific evidence, and valid reasoning.
So in conclusion what authority figures say or believe by itself isn’t equivalent to scientific evidence!