/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12405626]

Why is appeal to authority in science so vastly used? Scientific consensus is considered proof when there's not supposed to be any authority in science.

[Anonymous No.12405695]

>>12405626 It's not ideal. For instance because there's too few scientists with too little time working in a way that takes too much time etc. Other than that what are you criticizing in specific?

[Anonymous No.12405706]

>>12405626
human nature trumps science. We are fallible to corruption and business/politics gets in the way. Hence gate keeping on IQ and social sciences.

[Anonymous No.12405710]

>>12405626
Because scientists these days are jewish queers, women and niggers, all of whom of wholly incompetent retards.
The only way they can pretend to not be useless wastes is to cheat, as evidenced by the reproducibility crisis.
Appeal to authority is a way to shift from the scientific method to dogma, and shut down inquiries.

PEEPEE POOPOO

[Anonymous No.12405718]

>>12405710
>PEEPEE POOPOO
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.12405741]

>>12405626
appeal to authority /= authority

[Anonymous No.12406083]

>>12405626
Scientific consensus is a consensus of published, peer-reviewed evidence. It's the closest to proof you can get in the empirical world.

[Anonymous No.12406160]

>>12406083
bait

[Anonymous No.12406169]

>>12406160
retard

[Anonymous No.12406180]

>>12406083
>some institution approved someone work, the approval is more worthy than the work itself
cool example of dogmatism

[Anonymous No.12406476]

>>12405626
Because at the end of the day the consensus is simply the result of all evidence gathered in support of it. If you want to argue with the consensus you simply need to provide better evidence. The fact you're butthurt about this strongly suggests you can't provide this simple step.

[Anonymous No.12406633]

>>12405626
Appeal to authority isn't a "logical fallacy" 99% of the time
If you have a question about something random like a specific algorithm in a CS niche
and a mcdonalds worker gives u an answer and a harvard prof gives u an answer
are u gonna believe the mcdonalds worker cause muh appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.12406950]

>>12406083
>people unironically believe this

[Anonymous No.12406965]

>>12406633
Unironically yes if the macdonalds worker explain why it works and the harvard professor says "if you don't agree it means you are a fascist"

[Anonymous No.12406977]

>>12405626
It isn't, when you're talking to scientific peers with a baseline of competence.

On HERE though? It's used because you can't even expect an undergraduate level of understanding of the subject being discussed, or even standard scientific methodology.

[Anonymous No.12407039]

>>12405626
That's kind of a problem with academia in general. There's a bad habit of defaulting to certain authorities as a quick-and-easy way to validate certain pieces of data (which sometimes turns out as well as it sounds).

[Anonymous No.12407099]

>>12405626
because of universal education. brainlets can't understand science, and midwits pretend they can understand it. but both "believe" in it because "science" is taught to be the way that truth is ascertained. the name of science is then hijacked by the communist Jews who control the media, who attach the term as a kind of truth-containing halo to literally anything that they wish to promote

[Anonymous No.12407103]

>>12406180
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.12407104]

>>12405626
Appeal to expertise isn't an appeal to authority, retard.

Stop using LE EBIN LOGICAL FALLACIES, redditor. they don't work in the real world.

[Anonymous No.12407106]

>>12405626
>Why is appeal to authority in science so vastly used?
Because beta brainlets become scientists to compensate for them being bullied in their childhood, so they can't use their alpha chad confidence to gain credibility so they have to point at some authority or majority credentials.
I used to like science but it's full of rubberspined basedlets with political agenda, we should just sew some crosses and religious iconography into the labcoats so people don't mistake it for anything else but the religious cult that it actually is.

[Anonymous No.12407112]

>>12405626
Like I told you repeatedly, people are clamp cucks. They turn everything into religion because all they're actually interested in is status and social bullshit. What is the purpose of religion? To create an externalized organizing principle, then move to convince, convert, and recruit. What do you see modern so-call "science" doing? That same proselytizing bullshit, and if you don't tow the line and tell these whore cucks what they want to hear, they gang up on the heretic. The blasphemer. And they cast him out. That is, they excommunicate him.

Simple as. It's religion. When the "atheists" and "skeptics" tell you they're not religious, ask them to define religion. Chances are they'll tell you some nonsense about deities and religious objects. Ask them to define the two, and it'll come back to religion and faith, guaranteed.

[El Arcón No.12407113]

>>12405626
Appeal to scientific authority is used outside of science, often by those fucking love it, but it is not used in science. People who do science know that it begins and ends with pic related, and there is nothing in science other than that. On the outside, sometimes people act like all communicated results are true.

[Anonymous No.12407117]

>>12407113
The issue is that some people who "are scientists" are not actually doing science.

[Anonymous No.12407122]

>>12407117
Indeed, anyone who disagrees with me is not a scientist.

[El Arcón No.12407124]

>>12407117
Yes, this is an issue related to an oxymoron.

[Anonymous No.12407128]

>>12407113
99% of the people who disagree with the scientific consensus tend to have failed at step 2 of this diagram. And no offense, it's always an embarrassingly basic thing they fail at too, like understanding what statistical significance means, or why the null hypothesis is what it is, or using the dictionary definition of some jargon instead of the definition specific to the field.

[Anonymous No.12407129]

>>12407112
Until you find out some of us experience deities empirically and then your whole framework of reality has to be redesigned but instead of trusting your fellow human you torture them demanding they make these entities appear for everyone else otherwise "they don't exist". If they don't exist then why am I talking about "them"?

[Anonymous No.12407132]

>>12407128
>using the dictionary definition of some jargon instead of the definition specific to the field
pic related is tooker

[Anonymous No.12407141]

>>12407132
The vast majority of quantum pseuds come from misinterpreting "observation."

[Anonymous No.12407152]

>>12407129
This is all doctrinal details and higher theology, which are beside the point, as is even the definition of a particular "God" and what it is to "exist". The core of the matter is simply the creation of externalized organizing principles, then the application of faith and construction of rituals around them. If you have these things and choose to anchor your faith accordingly, you have a religion. If you "believe in" "science", most likely you're going to find yourself reading scientific articles and books. Thus, you're getting your view of reality from writings of peo-ple you've never met, reviewed by an opaque structure you cna't evaluate, about experiments you cannot run. That is the essence of faith. After you've accepted this faith, the rest of your reality follows a priori. You defer to scientists and governmental bodies like popes, cardinals, and priests, as they are the people who can interpret the stars and the know the language of the Gods (often mathematics), and this organizes your mind and behavior. To control your behavior, people need only invoke the right holy words, like "evidence", "statistically significant", and more perversely for the masses "consensus", "settled science", and "proven 100%".

It's all religion. Religion may even be unavoidable, but the damage of this human tendency is greatly attenuated by realizing and admitting.

[Anonymous No.12407167]

>>12407152
Does in mean, that any results of science in form of technology are not real?

[Anonymous No.12407179]

>>12407167
Real is relative, you would have to define it and "exist". Either way, no. Whether you use the language of science or any of the other religions, through ritual or trial and error, it can amount to something tangible.

[Anonymous No.12407202]

>>12407179
>>12407152
brain damage

[Anonymous No.12407210]

>>12407202
Here, have a neat image.

[Anonymous No.12407215]

>>12405626
>appeal to authority
Literally because generally 'authorities' are the ones funding the research, whether it's the defense branches of the government or the NSF.

[Anonymous No.12407383]

>>12407167
Technology always predates the science about it.
Even the miniaturisation of the transistors predated the theories behind it.

[Anonymous No.12407510]

>>12406965
Let’s imagine the McDonalds worker and the Harvard prof give vagueish answers you don’t fully understand because you’re not a computer scientist. The McDonald’s worker could be lying, so could the prof, you can’t tell. That’s where appeal to authority comes in

[Anonymous No.12407533]

>>12407510
retard this is different, you're using someones words as proof instead of data. this shouldn't be the case in science

[Anonymous No.12407539]

>>12407112
>>12407152
Really well put anon, the cult of “The Science” (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean) is just that - a religious cult worshipped by midwits and redditors with no understanding as to how scientific research is conducted. They think it’s some magic box that the scientists (ie. priests) get the apparent objective truth from, and if you disagree you’re a heretic

[Anonymous No.12407943]

>>12405710
sure women and niggers are incompetent bastards agreed but why the unnecessary anti semitism?

[Anonymous No.12408019]

>>12406965
holy fuck u retard lmao
brb dropping out of harvard to attend lectures at my local soup kitchen about physics and math

[Anonymous No.12408343]

>>12407943
Ashkenazis' IQ is 95, with the others breeds being basically arabs.
In other words, subhuman retarded filth.

[Anonymous No.12408395]

>>12407533
Say a McDonald’s worker and a Harvard professor both hand you data you can’t interpret telling you this data supports each of their individual theories

[Anonymous No.12408776]

>>12405710
I got into this thread expecting a serious discussion and this made me burst out laughing, lmao

[Anonymous No.12409922]

>>12406633
>are u gonna believe the mcdonalds worker cause muh appeal to authority
>needing to believe one or the other immediately
why are you so retarded