Dismissal of peer reviewed papers as Appeal To Authority

I think it safely can be said that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding how science works, as well as claims derived from the use of scientific methods. Any scientist who claims that they are right about something with no possibility of error is to be looked upon with suspicion. Generally, the correct scientific attitude is, "I think I am correct, but there is always the possibility that I may not be and I am open to being corrected." 

Being outright dismissive is not correct, nor is merely embracing claims blindly. The safest bet it to adhere to the overall consensus on a topic, but even that can change overt time, so skepticism is always at work. This is how knowledge grows over time.  

"I think I am correct, but there is always the possibility that I may not be".....so, they may not be correct about there always being a  possibility that they may not be correct? Sounds like a rational way of seeing the world, huh...lol

Do they have a criticism of what's said in the paper, though? If so, what is your response to that criticism?

I have to say I don't particularly rely on consensus or peer review, my preference is to follow the debunking trail. What does Expert B say in response to Expert A's paper and what is Expert A's response to Expert B's criticism if any? As a non-expert it's very difficult to evaluate material directly but with guidance by criticism it's much easier. Of course, a critic may be in error but if they are then we would expect the person they're criticising to defend against that error.

I don't believe a lot of what's put out by scientists now but even when I did and felt that "science" was perfectly trustworthy I still followed the debunking trail. As soon as I heard about man-made climate change I was predisposed to accept it as I remembered learning at school about CO2 being a trace gas in the atmosphere that kept us warm so it made sense to me that if you muck around with something that has a significant effect at a trace level (like, say, iron in the blood) it's reasonable to expect problems will arise. However, even though I felt science was perfectly trustworthy and I thought what the climate scientists were saying sounded perfectly reasonable I gave the other side a go. I looked at what they said and what the climate scientists had to say in response ... the climate scientists always seemed to win easily.

Cannot say the same for other subjects though, not at all, in the case of certain other subjects I think the debunkers win ... and the thing is they are not responded to - the debunking trail ends with them, that's the clear indicator of their rightness apart from the fact that their criticism seems perfectly valid.

Do they have a criticism of what's said in the paper, though?

No, they did not provide any rebuttal.  Typically, they claim Appeal to  Authority as a means of dismissing the evidence.  It's a typical science denier tactic.

In this case it is gravity.  They say it doesn't exist.  The paper I provided was actually a review of key experimental tests of gravitational theory and Relativity.  It contained a brief explanation, analytical solution, and citations to the original sources.

This wasn't a discussion of some out there, off the wall theories.  This was just straight up text book physics.

Mike  

If they don't have a rebuttal I don't really understand why they would expect you to pay attention to their claim. Come on, you need at least an attempt at a rebuttal.

All I do is argue with people and it does drive me crazy ... but then it helps me refine my thoughts. This is now what I'd say about what we should believe science-wise.

The consensus of scientists stands ... until someone comes along (no matter who) and presents a cogent debunking ... that is not responded to. What happens though is that the cogent debunking is often ignored and not responded to or if it's responded to it's only responded to once and when that response is responded to once more the defender of the consensus argument drops out. What people fail to appreciate is that volumes upon volumes can be written about a subject where the claims made can be punctured so very, very easily. What people are also misled to believe is that now we have the "scientific method" and we have "peer-reviewed journals" what scientists say, what the consensus say MUST be right but what is painfully obvious is that maverick scientists and other knowledgeable people have presented cogent criticisms of what is said by the consensus and have simply been ignored.

Ultimately, science is always about WHAT not WHO. We can never get away from that fact, it's always WHAT not WHO.

If we look at history we can see so many instances of knowledge held by a small minority being ignored, for example, I picked up a book on scurvy which I regret not reading. In the first couple of pages it mentioned that the cure for scurvy was known well before it became generally accepted, even centuries before I believe. It could be that there was no particular cure that was thought to work generally - even if obviously it didn't - I don't know but what we know absolutely is that knowledge can be held by a minority of people that isn't recognised by the majority.

I actually had several papers all of which were on gravity and published in Nature, Science, or physics/astrophysics journals.  All of the data is currently considered scientific consensus...most of which is already in standard physics text books.  I try to keep it to the most universally accepted and easily verifiable information. 

Of course, it's a discussion with a group of science deniers so even if the paper were written by Feynman, peer reviewed by Einstein, and universally accepted as scientific consensus it would still be dismissed...mostly based on [insert conspiracy here] and "education is indoctrination" bologna.

A few replies pushing for testable verifiable data on their part and they usually back down.  I was just wondering if there was a specific category for improperly applying fallacies as a means to dismiss evidence without consideration.

Mike

I was just wondering if there was a specific category for improperly applying fallacies as a means to dismiss evidence without consideration. 

Saying something is a fallacy when it isn't, is just incorrect (i.e., being wrong). See also the argument from fallacy .

  I was just wondering if there was a specific category for improperly applying fallacies as a means to dismiss evidence without consiDeration?

I would say this is a red herring , much like any attempt to distract the conversation from its merits, similar to the “ I’m Entitled To My Opinion fallacy 

I can present you all sorts of nonsense found in "published peer reviewed papers." This is because a) there exist many journals with very low standards b) "peers" in these journals are often just activists who support an ideological position

Salient comment. It's misleading to say "trust the experts" without distinguishing between types of expertise, and the strength of the evidence they can provide.

"You would be better using scientific consensus than presenting a single paper. Non-scientists are egregiously wrong when they trust their own "scientific expertise" over the vast body of actual scientific professionals"

I think this would just change the fallacy from appeal to authority to argumentum ad populum. " Science deniers" are characterized as one who does not trust so called experts of conventional science, which is why they are accusing the arguer of fallacies that calls the validity of the arguers sources to question. Another major reason why such "authorities" are questioned is because scientists often get paid by parties who would benefit from the findings of their research. 

It's important to remember that while it's not a fallacy in itself to read these journals to gain information on a topic, it is fallacious to justify your beliefs on the grounds of what the scientific consensus is, or what a respected peer review journal published. 

Read the journals and different sources and understand the information for yourself. Then you can say you know it's true because x,y,z facts have been observed, rather than because x,y,z journal had a paper about it, or association x affirms it. 

I think this would just change the fallacy from appeal to authority to  argumentum ad populum. 

No. One doesn't refer to scientific consensus because "a lot of people believe it so it must be true." A (strong) scientific consensus is shorthand for a convergence of evidence that demonstrates the truth or validity of the claim in question. It would be accurate to say, "The vast majority of experts in the field have studied the data and came to this conclusions, therefore, I trust their expertise more than I trust my opinion."

Read the journals and different sources and understand the information for yourself. 

Ahhh, the "do your own research" gambit. I assure you, virtually everyone who "does their own research" (i.e. Googling) is inadequately qualified to evaluate evidence, evaluate quality of research sources, understand the findings, understand the limitations, understand the methodology used, understand the statistics, and even understand much of the terminology used in the research.

Then you can say you know it's true because x,y,z facts have been observed, rather than because x,y,z journal had a paper about it, or association x affirms it.  

This is a beautiful example of logic over reason (i.e., logic chopping ). In order to avoid a dreaded fallacy one sacrifices reason. It is reasonable to accept an overwhelming scientific consensus while someone may, under the banner of "logic," insist that the logical thing to do would be to become an expert in scientific field and evaluate all the available evidence yourself.

And what this actually means is you THINK you know it is true rather than you think the vast majority of scientists who are qualified to evaluate the research are correct.

Just a sidebar perspective and question:

Lawrence Krauss employs a unique strategy when debating ID'ers and Creationists by citing a Case Western study he was involved with that surveyed 20,000,000 scientific papers submitted over 20 years that determined 150,000 of those peer-reviewed papers were on evolution and natural selection. Out of those 150,000 scientific studies approximately 80 refutations were submitted by Christian mechanical engineers and not biologists. They were all peer-reviewed and almost all of them were funded by The Discovery Institute. Needless to say, none of the submitted papers were ever seriously reviewed by the Nobel committee.

I read volumes of academic papers from historians every day and they tend to be extremely dense and meticulously researched and annotated with sources, citations, and often include the exact quote that supports or detracts from their stated abstract and purpose.  Very often the author debates both sides and explains why they side with one conclusion over the other especially when it disagrees with the established consensus.

Obviously, the scholarly discipline is hugely impressive with little room for amateurs. I have discovered though there are some detractors, again, mostly Christians, who dismiss the paper based on the researcher's academic bonafides rather than the well-documented sources, citations, and arguments in their research. It's kind of like Authority Mining.

Whatever credentials the author may have they are dismissed as untenured, fringe, or substandard to academic norms. So, the argument is cleverly deflected from the actual research and its well-documented citations and redirected towards the researcher's qualifications as judged solely by the opponent's ad hoc criteria. Normally, it would appear to be a perversion of Appeal to Authority, but there has to be a more precise description. It's a kind of Moving the Goalpost, strawman red herring, and a farrago of other fallacies rolled into one. 

Let me clarify something. There is a difference between "It is true because" and "I am justified to believe it because." For example, if a team of doctors confirmed a person has cancer, that person would be fully justified to believe it. We don't call "appeal to authority" because the person says he has cancer because his doctors told him. In a purely logical sense, "I have cancer because a team of doctors told me I do" is fallacious but in the real world, "I have cancer because a team of doctors told me I do" is reasonable (not fallacious). What is unreasonable , is asking for a biopsy, then doing your own testing on the biopsy to check for cancer (because you can't trust experts to do it for you because of financial interests, big pharma, the Illuminati, etc.). Likewise, when 97% of the world's scientists in a particular field tell us something about their particular field of study, we are fully justified to believe it, and it is unreasonable to rely on "our own research".

 Referring to a paper is not an authority, thus not an appeal to an authority. When one references the literature (peer-reviewed journals), they are actually referencing the evidence found in the research, not the people who conducted the research.

I found this statement a bit confusing, and disagree on a couple of points, but the disagreements may come down to a matter of semantics--defining terms differently.

First, I would say that when someone is referring to a paper in support of a claim, they are referring to an Authority.  If I claim that black holes can emit radiation, and cite Stephen Hawking, I could either be referring to Stephen Hawking (as a person) as the authority (if, for example, I heard him give a lecture on the topic), or I could be referring to such and such paper or book written by Stephen Hawking.   That paper or book is the Authority .  A Bibliography at the end of a paper or book is citing authorities.

Although other “Authorities” can define the word differently (as you do), “Authority” can refer to any reliable source of information—for example, the university textbook Power of Logic by Frances Howard-Snyder says that an “Authority’ can be “from any source of information (e.g., a person, a paper, or a reference book)…We use arguments from authority when we appeal to dictionaries, encyclopedias, maps, or experts in any field.”  

Second, if I am “referring to the evidence found in the research”, since I have only indirect knowledge of the evidence found in the research, I am relying on the authority I am citing and the authorities that authority is citing as to both the reliability of the research and whether it is being reported accurately.  Whether that research can be presumed true depends on whether the authority and authorities are qualified, reliable, not biased etc. -in other words, whether relying on those authorities would be committing any Appeal To Authority fallacy.  If it is reasonable to rely on those authorities, then, as you mention elsewhere, I am “Derring to Authority”  (most logic books call that "Argument From Authority" which is a proper form of inductive reasoning).

Even if I’m talking about something generally well known and not controversial, such as the location of a spleen, I am deferring to an authority or authorities (those who came before me that found the location of a spleen).   If an issue is not in controversy and we’re not trying to convince anyone of anything, then it’s not an argument, but rather an explanation.  So if a biology professor gives a lecture on evolution, it is not an argument; if that professor gave the same lecture to a group of doubters, then it is an argument. But in either case, if he or she cites information in the lecture, whether referring to scientists or to their writings, they are referring to authorities.

If I claim that black holes can emit radiation, and cite Stephen Hawking, I could either be referring to Stephen Hawking (as a person) as the authority (if, for example, I heard him give a lecture on the topic), or I could be referring to such and such paper or book written by Stephen Hawking.

You can also be referring to the body of research conducted and evidence presented by Stephen Hawking. This research and evidence is not an "authority."

Snyder says that an “Authority’ can be “from any source of information

Let's take this to its logical conclusion. If all information is "an authority", then all claims of knowledge are appeals to authority and thus all claims are fallacious. Of course, this is problematic, if not absurd.

since I have only indirect knowledge of the evidence found in the research, I am relying on the authority I am citing and the authorities that authority is citing as to both the reliability of the research and whether it is being reported accurately.

As it is with all knowledge. I know I am low on gas because my needle is on "E", but I am trusting the "authority" of the manufacturer that it is accurately representing what I am seeing. The manufacture is trusting authorities that provide parts, etc. This only means nothing is certain and knowledge should be probability-based (and provisional), but not necessarily reject, distrusted, or denied.

But in either case, if he or she cites information in the lecture, whether referring to scientists or to their writings, they are referring to authorities.

I agree that this is semantics. We can either work with the understanding that everything is an authority and agree that some appeals to authority are non-fallacious, or narrow the definition of authority. Honestly, I have done both even on this forum.

It seems there are several 'appeals to authority'.

Say for instance I want to decide whether to believe that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is really happening. I could call on a number of different 'authorities':

"AGW is happening because a top climatologist said so." - strictly speaking, this is appeal to authority. The person is a climate scientist, so they provide relevant expertise...but the truth of a proposition cannot be evidenced by the word of a single person. Logically, this is no different from saying "it's true because it's in the Bible." Additional supporting evidence is needed (i.e. studies.)

"AGW is happening because a TV personality said so." - this is appeal to false authority because a celebrity is not in a position to know much about climate science, if anything. I think this example is easier to point out because we can agree that false authorities do not provide relevant expertise.

"AGW is happening because most people say it is." - appeal to common belief (or 'authority of the crowds'). This one is a little obvious.

(There are others, but these are the most relevant to the climate debate).

I think the confusion comes with the first example. People have difficulty agreeing what 'appeal to authority' means. If it's always a fallacy, then any appeal to authority is invalid - which means quoting one scientist as 'proof' that X happens is a mistake. Others say it has exceptions, when the authority is valid - but isn't that why appeal to false authority exists? There'd be no need for it if 'appeal to authority' covered instances of irrelevant authorities.

So now, people quote whom they consider to be relevant authorities, only to be told they're committing a fallacy because that's technically the definition. But there's also a risk of missing the point here. As Dr Bo pointed out, people are often using surrogates. E.g. quoting a scientist is using them as a surrogate for the studies they've contributed to, for example. With this usage, appealing to authority is not fallacious, because you are appealing to the evidence they've gathered.

It'd be like knocking me for citing Galileo for evidence of the heliocentric model, when I'm actually referring to the observations he made which helped to establish it.

Hmm. Perhaps a few changes need to be made to these fallacy entries, to make it clear what an 'authority' is, and where using them is okay.

I notice in doing an Internet search on "Appeal To Authority", that the term is used in 2 completely different senses by different authors (as well as numerous variations).
The first approach is Dr. Bo's definition of appeal to authority  "Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered."   
The other approach is basically the False Authority approach; i.e., relying on an expert is a fallacy only if the authority is not qualified, is biased, or is in some other way not a proper authority.  If the authority is qualified, unbiased etc., then relying on that authority is not a fallacy, except:
Under either approach, it is a fallacy to cite an expert on an issue in which qualified experts disagree--without giving reasons as to why we should believe that expert rather than the other experts.  
Going back to the Stephen Hawking example, if someone were to say “black holes don’t emit radiation” and my sole rebuttal was “per Stephen Hawking, they do”, under the first approach (if I understand it correctly—correct me if I’m wrong), that would be an Appeal To Authority  fallacy.  Under the second approach, that would not be a fallacy but would be proper inductive reasoning, relying on a proper authority (except for the “authorities disagree” exception referred to above).  That doesn’t mean under the second approach that the conclusion—“black holes don’t emit radiation” is true—even an imminent expert like Stephen Hawking could be wrong—it just means that  my rebuttal wasn’t fallacious, but rather offered some support for my position.

[To Ed F]

I notice Dr. Bo addresses the above issue in the discussion of appeal to authority, where he says "Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy.... It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities."  But I'm confused how to reconcile that with the definition given of Appeal To Authority:  "Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered."    If I cite a qualified authority without giving other evidence, is that a fallacy or just subject to rebuttal?

Dr. Bo, please clarify!  Thanks

In short, it is the difference between "Insisting that a claim is true" and providing justification for your belief in the claim. Deferring to expertise is a fine way to navigate our world, but it often does not suffice for argumentation and convincing evidence.

Good point regarding expert disagreement. "But X scientist says Y!" becomes far less convincing when you realise there's a variety of opinion within the field.

I abbreviated the quote from Snyder's  Power of Logic textbook.  I left out the part that says “an Authority is a reliable producer of true statements on some topic.”

The point I was trying to make, which the textbook makes, is that an “Authority” refers to the (reliable) sources of our information, whether it be a person, encyclopedia etc. (By the way, I never said “the research and evidence” of Steven Hawking is an Authority", but the papers describing that research and evidence are authorities).  But I agree this is a term that can be used differently by different sources. 

By the way, I never said “the research and evidence” of Steven Hawking is an Authority"

Just for clarification, I wrote this because when someone refers to the the work of someone like Hawking, they can be referring to his research and evidence presented. In this case, presenting "Hawking" as evidence is a surrogate for his research and evidence. Thus, it is less of an appeal to / argument from authority than is an appeal to evidence.

You would be better using scientific consensus than presenting a single paper.

Just saying scientific consensus is part of the problem.  I do use that often but that's the first thing dismissed as an Appeal to Authority.  

It wasn't a subject like climate change or electric vs. gas.  The subject was gravity.  They claim it doesn't exist and everyone one else on the planet says it does.

Mike