# Personal beliefs based on an appeal to authority . . . in science? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2009, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639 "2009-07-29T04:31:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/21 "2009-07-29T11:05:37Z")
You dislike religion. We get it. You really ought to start that groundbreaking thread. My question, for those who are paying attention, is an epistemological one: for a layman, not proficient in the math, _what can be known_ and _how is it known_, especially regarding the bigger scientific theories on where did we come from and why are we here? Are they _known_ in a way that’s any different than how people come to believe the non-science-based questions? And does it make a difference? I care not a whit to be drawn into an argument over the society-wide merits of science vs. religion and whether it’s a false dilemma to begin with; it has absolute fuck-all to do with what I’m asking. Clear enough? ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/22 "2009-07-29T11:33:25Z")
I guess in practical effect one reason I ask is this: Why, in this world of scientific wonders where everything around us is perfectly explained by [thomas dolby] SCIENCE! [/tb], why does nonsense like [the “law of attraction”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Attraction) or anti-vaccination activism, or, fine, religion itself, still gain traction? It may be obvious to those proficient in science that the latter stuff is all BS, but from the layman’s perspective, are they all legimately accepted as possibly valid? Is it possible to tell Joe Schmoe that he’s wrong in any other terms except “accept my authority and not theirs”? ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/23 "2009-07-29T11:39:27Z")
Another thing is: as math and science education gets progressively worse, and the boundaries of scientific discovery become progressively more occult (can any non-physicist _really_ explain to me what’s going on with quantum mechanics?), it really seems like we’re approaching the point where sufficiently advanced technology becomes indistinguishable from magic. From a layman’s perspective, who’s to say it’s _not_ magic, practically speaking, and what’s the implication of _that_?? ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/24 "2009-07-29T11:55:45Z")
I do get where you are coming from, Koxinga. To an extent we put trust in someone or something, but people might be reluctant to allow it to be put in those terms because of the facile “science is just another kind of religion,” dogma espoused by the religion-religious. And in a way the trust we put in quantum theory is more like the trust we put in historical events that happened before we were born, i.e., we are putting trust in primary documents and expert sources because it makes far more sense than believing there was a vast conspiracy to deceive us by manufacturing those records and lying to us. You did not confuse rational trust with blind faith, as people often do, so I think it’s a dead horse nobody needs to beat. Expert opinion is not always fallacy. In fact, there are specific conditions where the appeal to authority is fallacious – when the expert is not really an expert, when there are far more experts who disagree, when the expert is not disinterested, or when the facts contradict what the expert is saying. Citing a known climatologist who’s a professor at Stanford and has made a life’s work studying global warming is fine. Citing a guy who’s actually a lawyer, bankrolled by energy companies, and denies even that there is measurable indications that the planet is getting hotter – because he’s written a book “debunking” global warming - is an appeal to authority. The fallacy should really be called “an appeal to false authority.” ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/25 "2009-07-29T12:50:56Z")
The OP is fascinating and challenging. On a personal level, depending on what you mean by “prove”, it could be very difficult or impossible to prove many things one believes. I think, though, there is more than just appeal to authority. There is a framework in society of interdependent thoughts and memes and traditions. It is implausible that so many people work with ideas and principles that incorporate Einsteinian relativity and that such relativity is flat out wrong; you would hear about it if that were the case. Lots of us have had the experience of learning something about the supernatural, and trying it, and having it not work right. Generally, as far as I have chased any of those failed supernatural ideas, I haven’t gotten down to a core that works right. Whereas, lots of us have had the experience of learning something about the sciences, and trying it, and having it work. Of course, often they don’t work, too - or at least they seem not to. In my experience when I chase after them they eventually work or I eventually find out I’m doing it wrong because of some misunderstanding. I don’t have any captive missing pieces, by which I mean I can’t demonstrate to myself or anybody else a claim made by one of the sciences that simply fails. You can get as far as you want with these things, as others point out. I actually did study physics and work through the math behind Einstein’s special relativity (which is simpler than general relativity). Doing so was a splendid experience that made me love him and the way he thought about the problem, but it didn’t change my world view in the ways we are discussing, it just reaffirmed them the umpteenth time. What I can hang my hat on is that all my experiences and conversations with others are consistent with a framework in which generally the sciences are right, or, much more accurately, the sciences are “onto something”. The theories are NEVER really right all the way through, they are steppingstones, but they do keep getting at deeper and deeper things, and they are more right than their predecessors. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/26 "2009-07-29T12:51:28Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Not just testable, but tested. Einstein became famous not when the theories were published, but when it was shown that Mercury was where he said it would be, not where classical mechanics said it would be. There have been countless other tests. Yes, but how many people understand those tests? You’ve just added another layer of authority, from “Is Einstein right?” to “Are those who did the tests right?” Also, how many non-scientists really understand the nature of scientific tests? > [@](#): > > What a layman can do is to look up the predictions of a theory, see that they were made before an experiment, and then see that the experiment didn’t falsify the theory. Perhaps that’s what a layman \*could \*do, but that’s rarely what a layman actually _does_. More important, though: Why \*would \*he do that? On what basis has he determined that falsifiability is even relevant? And, more basic: On what basis does a layman determine that the experiment verified the theory? > [@](#): > > Experimental results are so important that Penzias and Wilson got a Nobel Prize for accidentally confirming the existence of cosmic background radiation, predicted by the Big Bang. Seems like that’s evidence of what’s required to win a Nobel Prize … 😉 > [@](#): > > When believers in transubstantiation predict things that can be experimentally verified, I might stop thinking its a joke. But, whether you think it’s a joke is not scientific evidence of whether there’s any truth to it, right? And, just to be clear, I do not have religious beliefs and I accept modern science, as do many others. But I don’t have an ironclad argument about why I should accept one belief and dismiss the other. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/27 "2009-07-29T13:02:21Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > True, theological propositions are not supported by evidence or by anything that can be checked, but isn’t this true of all philosophical propositions? Where is the “evidence . . . that can be checked” which supports my belief in a woman’s right to choose, or the immorality of torture, or the virtues of republican democracy, or the importance of respect for others, or the goodness of love, or the desireablity of human solidarity? None of these proposistions are original; are they all, therefore, accepted on authority? For that matter, are the beliefs and values which underlied the philosophy of science also accepted on authority? I agree. > [@](#): > > I suspect we rely on an appeal to authority to sustain our faith in scientific propositions rather more than we do to sustain our faith in theological or philosophical propositions. Possibly. In any case, the accepting or rejecting of a scientific proposition is based on accepting some philosophical propositions and rejecting others. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/28 "2009-07-29T14:48:41Z")
I think this is a good piece of evidence too: > **[Science](https://xkcd.com/54/)** > > Bonus points if you can identify the science in question The Science in question was cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the Big Bang. It when it was measured it matched scientific predictions almost exactly. Short of outright 1984ish level deception I think this pretty strong evidence science is on the right track. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/29 "2009-07-29T15:05:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > He lives in a world filled with devices invented using science that work according to scientific principles. He’s also lives in a world not in accord with scientific principles. Irrationality, hatred, love, life, death, morals, empathy, etc. Oh, and gravity. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/30 "2009-07-29T15:09:33Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I think this is a good piece of evidence too: > [xkcd: Science](http://xkcd.com/54/) 😕 A web comic? ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/31 "2009-07-29T15:23:54Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Does Pope Benedict contradict anything Stephen Hawkings says? And, if so, what? Well JP2 told Hawking not to inquire about what happened before the big bang because it was immoral to delve into what is a province of God. Hawking mentions this in “A Brief History of Time” and a recent Discover article. In addition there have been stirrings from the Catholic Church that the Multiverse hypothesis may be contrary to Catholic doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/32 "2009-07-29T15:24:53Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > So, on a _personal level_, how are such beliefs any different than espousal of (say) transubstantiation, reincarnation or karma? Because they’re falsifiable. That’s all there is to it, really. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/33 "2009-07-29T15:38:39Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Because they’re falsifiable. That’s all there is to it, really. How specifically are they falsifiable? And, what are “they”? If you mean “all scientific theories, by definition”, then who determined which theories are scientific? Was it scientists or non-scientists? At some point, the layman says: I accept what you say because I am convinced that you are an expert. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/34 "2009-07-29T15:42:28Z")
Your “really” suggests that nobody who knows what they’re talking about disagrees with you. Perhaps Sokal and Bricmont don’t know what they’re talking about: > [@](#): > > In their book Fashionable Nonsense (published in the UK as Intellectual Impostures) the physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. They argue that theories are used because of their successes, not because of the failures of other theories. Their discussion of Popper, falsifiability and the philosophy of science comes in a chapter entitled “Intermezzo,” which contains an attempt to make clear their own views of what constitutes truth, in contrast with the extreme epistemological relativism of postmodernism. > > Sokal and Bricmont write, “When a theory successfully withstands an attempt at falsification, a scientist will, quite naturally, consider the theory to be partially confirmed and will accord it a greater likelihood or a higher subjective probability. … But Popper will have none of this: throughout his life he was a stubborn opponent of any idea of ‘confirmation’ of a theory, or even of its ‘probability’. … [but] the history of science teaches us that scientific theories come to be accepted above all because of their successes.” (Sokal and Bricmont 1997, 62f) > > They further argue that falsifiability cannot distinguish between astrology and astronomy, as both make technical predictions that are sometimes incorrect. > **[Falsifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)** > > Falsifiability is a standard of evaluation of scientific statements, including theories and hypotheses. A statement is falsifiable if it belongs to a language or logical structure capable of describing an empirical observation that contradicts it. In the case of a theory, it says that, given an initial condition, the theory must theoretically prohibit some observations, that is, it must make formal predictions. It was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Lo... (Also, who determines whether Wikipedia is correct? ;)) ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/35 "2009-07-29T16:27:37Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > He lives in a world filled with devices invented using science that work according to scientific principles. He doesn’t live in a world where people fly to China by praying hard, he lives in a world where people fly there in an airplane. He lives in a world where science works, in public and all over the place. But that they work according to scientific principles is what he generally takes on authority. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/36 "2009-07-29T17:10:24Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > You will often see “appeal to authority” in lists of logical fallacies but, actually, an appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious. You appear not to understand fallacies. They make no claim about the truth value of a statement just the faulty building blocks to arrive there. Like Ad Hominem, Paris Hilton may indeed be a slut but that isn’t proof she slept with you. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/37 "2009-07-29T17:15:14Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Like Ad Hominem, Paris Hilton may indeed be a slut but that isn’t proof she slept with you. You’re saying that in UDS’s case, Paris Hilton is not necessarily fellatious? ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/38 "2009-07-29T17:21:35Z")
stupid edit window ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/39 "2009-07-29T17:26:49Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > No. There is a difference between _understanding_ a scientific proposition which in the case of many propositions is something attainable to most of us with a little mental application, and _knowing that a scientific proposition is true_, which in many cases requires conducting or observing an appropriate experiment. > > In the case of most of us, for a wide range of scientific propositions, we accept on authority that the propositions have been emperically verified, and our belief in the truth of the propositions, as opposed to our ability to understand them, rests on that appeal to authority. > > (I am not asserting that this appeal to authority is unreasonable, unsound or imprudent. I am merely observing that it is widely made.) And the evidence I mentioned is exactly the experiments you mention. I wouldn’t consider believing that an experiment was done as described in a peer-reviewed journal article as an appeal to authority. In the same vein I’ll trust translations of the Bible done by reputable experts. You probably would need a smattering of statistics to understand the results of many experiments - but you need a smattering of history to get the Bible also. You don’t need to understand the proofs, though. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/40 "2009-07-29T17:27:49Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > You appear not to understand fallacies. They make no claim about the truth value of a statement just the faulty building blocks to arrive there. If used as part of a logical proof, “appeal to authority” is a fallacy. If used as part of a persuasive argument, it may not be. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639.md?page=3)