The Glade 4.0

Experts in the field disagree; consequently, RangerDave, any Appeal to Expertise on AIGW is an Appeal to Authority as well.

_________________

If I were to say, "Expert A is from Harvard and Expert B is from Minnesota State; therefore Expert A is right and Expert B is wrong," then yes, that would be an appeal to authority. However, if I say, "100 experts reviewed the data, and 90 concluded X while 10 concluded Y; therefore conclusion X is more likely to be correct," that would not be an appeal to authority.

Not to mention the circle-jerk of what it takes to be considered an a climate expert these days. Not agreeing with the AIGW theory disqualifies you from becoming a climate expert. So even if there is a consensus among climate experts, it signifies precisely nothing other than selection bias.


There's two problems with this:

1) That depends entirely on whether the Bayesian interpretation of probability is valid. Which is...less than clear.

And even if Bayesian theory is "right", it (like all conditional probabilities) breaks down if you gain or lose information. That is, the probability that a fair six-sided die will roll < 3 is 1/3. However, once the die has been cast, the probability is no longer 1/3, but strictly either 0 or 1 (100%). In the same way, it might be true that Bob is less likely to make a correct theory than an automotive expert, but as soon as Bob actually makes a theory, the probability is now entirely up to the information of the theory. It's not unlike quantum superpositions collapsing upon observation.

2) Even with respect to unknown theories, the validity of your Bayesian analysis depends entirely on how you've defined your "cookie jars". That is, it's only correct if the group you've defined as "experts" really have generated correct theories more often than the group you've defined as "not experts". Anyone who's ever set up Bayesian spam filter knows exactly what I'm talking about. Without good, accurate SPAM and HAM sources to train it on, the filter is useless and its probabilities are meaningless. Before your statements have any validity even within the Bayesian model, you need to: A) define precisely what qualifies an individual as an expert in the field, and B) quantify the frequency of correct theories by the group so defined.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

That doesn't matter because he's a scientist. He's not questioning the physical basis of the theory but its mettle under scrutiny of the scientific method. And he is an expert in that because he is a scientist.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

It be an appeal to both authority and popularity, and consequently ...

Still fallacious.

_________________

Stathol, in terms of evaluating scientific hypotheses, analyses and conclusions, do you accept or reject the importance of (i) reproducibility and (ii) independent peer review?

RangerDave:

You should ask Paul Krugman that question ...

_________________

*Points to his old .sig*

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I did. All I got in response was a 550-word complaint about how awful Bush was.

To clarify - please note that I'm using "appeal to authority" as short-hand for "fallacious appeal to authority." While my latter statement is indeed an appeal to authority, it is not fallacious.

I hate to tell you this RD, but as a bio major I can tell you that at least when I was in college HIGW was basically a religion. It was The Truth and you did not question it unless you wanted to be ridiculed constantly by everyone. You could not believe in evolution and people would respect you. But question HIGW and that was pretty much it for getting any kind of credibility or letters of reference. Heaven help you if you tried to question it on an official assignment, you'd run a high risk of being outright failed for that position. It's even worse in Europe, by the way.

Reproducibility is important -- actually, critical -- with respect to experiment.

Independent peer review is a more complicated issue. In the abstract, it ought to help identify flaws or errors in theory. Many eyes, and all that. However the actual, real-world practice of peer review today is demonstrably ineffective. And even with a perfect peer review process, there always exists the considerable problem of "publication bias" on the submitter's side of the equation. In other words, silently choosing not to publish your work when it didn't have the outcome you were hoping for, and publicizing only those experiments that did have your desired result. This happens way, way more often than anyone wants to admit.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.