# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/141 "2009-08-03T16:41:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t think you understand probability very well. The probability of the Big Bang theory being true would be very hard to measure, and it certainly has nothing to do with how much research you or anyone else has done on it. I am talking about an individual’s paradigm of reality vs reality. You have your paradigm of reality, I have mine and everybody has their own. However each of our paradigms is largely built on second hand information. We each must evaluate that second hand information. We each have to decide how much attention to pay to the many different things going on in reality. I am not talking about some ABSOLUTE PROBABILITY that we are all supposed to agree with. It doesn’t matter to me if your estimate of the probability is different from mine. I am not sufficiently interested in the Big Bang to study it to try to make a better estimate. My problem with the Big Bang is the size they say the universe is versus the time since the bang occurred. How did that much mass move that fast? This then brings up the issue of “space” being created. I admit I don’t understand it but I don’t just BELIEVE it either. So I give it a relatively low but greater than 50% probability. I conceded it is ONLY MY RATING. I am not asking anyone else to agree with it. I don’t care who does or does not agree with it. I bet most people that don’t have degrees in physics don’t understand the Big Bang either. They are just going along with what they regard as SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY. I was simply explaining to the creator of the OP how I analyze BELIEF vs SCIENCE which applies to many different subjects. I am not interested in going off into 9/11 stuff in this thread. psik ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/142 "2009-08-03T16:52:44Z")
Conveniently, though, it’s not necessary that every member of a soeciety understand science and engineering. It’s not even necessary that the realize when they’re talking out of their asses about it. The five percent or so of us who do can keep them from starving in the dark while covered in boils, as they certainly would if left to their own devices. ---
**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:** [August 3, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/143 "2009-08-03T17:18:08Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > I am talking about an individual’s paradigm of reality vs reality. > > You have your paradigm of reality, I have mine and everybody has their own. However each of our paradigms is largely built on second hand information. We each must evaluate that second hand information. We each have to decide how much attention to pay to the many different things going on in reality. I am not talking about some ABSOLUTE PROBABILITY that we are all supposed to agree with. It doesn’t matter to me if your estimate of the probability is different from mine. I am not sufficiently interested in the Big Bang to study it to try to make a better estimate. > > My problem with the Big Bang is the size they say the universe is versus the time since the bang occurred. How did that much mass move that fast? This then brings up the issue of “space” being created. I admit I don’t understand it but I don’t just BELIEVE it either. So I give it a relatively low but greater than 50% probability. I conceded it is ONLY MY RATING. I am not asking anyone else to agree with it. I don’t care who does or does not agree with it. > > I bet most people that don’t have degrees in physics don’t understand the Big Bang either. They are just going along with what they regard as SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY. I was simply explaining to the creator of the OP how I analyze BELIEF vs SCIENCE which applies to many different subjects. I am not interested in going off into 9/11 stuff in this thread. > > psik Thank you for helping me illustrate the points I was making to **Koxinga**. First, the universe doesn’t care a whit if we believe in it. Second, I agree that anyone who hasn’t read the papers and can’t do the math doesn’t really understand the Big Bang. I only passed differential equations because Nixon invaded Cambodia. But anyone can understand the Hubble constant, and anyone can understand the various yardsticks used for measuring the size of the universe. That gives the date of the Big Bang. Second, it isn’t hard to understand why there was a prediction of CBR, and very easy to understand how it was found. The success of that prediction should be enough to raise the truth of the Big Bang to be above 60% for anyone except die-hard steady staters (any of those left?) Further, the lumpiness of the early cosmos is simple to imagine, though I expect the cause for it, which involves information flow being limited by the speed of light, might take some time. The satellite results, showing the lumpiness of the background radiation, as predicted, is enough reason to provisionally buy inflation. So, no math needed, only basic physics, and no appeal to authority, since you could easily look up primary sources for these predictions before they were confirmed. BTW, you are also making a fundamental mistake with your version of probability, which is giving it more precision than warranted. By 65%, you probably means something like between 50% and 75%. (or 0 - 100%!) If you have a more precise way of computing this number, please let us know. People are way to ready to make a number be representative of a wide range of uncertainty, and then acting as if that number were rock solid. I see this all the time in papers in my area, and I’ve added warnings about this to my papers and the tutorial I am working on. Hmm, which give me a good idea for a column… ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/144 "2009-08-04T01:44:07Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > BTW, you are also making a fundamental mistake with your version of probability, which is giving it more precision than warranted. By 65%, you probably means something like between 50% and 75%. (or 0 - 100%!) If you have a more precise way of computing this number, please let us know. People are way to ready to make a number be representative of a wide range of uncertainty, and then acting as if that number were rock solid. I see this all the time in papers in my area, and I’ve added warnings about this to my papers and the tutorial I am working on. Hmm, which give me a good idea for a column… By 100% I mean TRUE with no doubt. By 0% I mean FALSE with no doubt. 50% means don’t know with as much chance of being true as false. Maybe don’t care either. 😃 There has been this relatively recent discovery of the rate of expansion increasing for unknown reasons. When dealing with subjects where I get the impression that there is a lot the experts don’t know but may not necessarily admit how much they don’t know I tend to reduce my probabilities. I think it is great for people with the brains and the curiosity I am not trying to KNOCK THE SCIENCE. I am just saying I don’t necessarily have to have much faith in their pronouncements especially on a subject that doesn’t really affect anyone that I can tell. How much difference does it make whether the universe is 15 billion or 20 billion years old? How much difference does it make whether it is 40 billion or 60 billion light years in diameter? If they find an Earth-like planet 120 light years away it is a nice scientific discovery but what can we do with it? We can’t get to the Moon efficiently. This cracked me up. > **[The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and...](https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/061891868X)** > > Buy The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders Haven’t read it and am not going to, just heard about it. psik ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/145 "2009-08-04T01:59:57Z")
Yes, it is, and far more so than any alternative. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/146 "2009-08-04T03:08:38Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yes, it is, and far more so than any alternative. But you need to distinguish between SCIENCE and Scientists. Scientists are just human beings and most of them are not Einsteins. Nobody speaks for science and science can’t talk. Never forget the Piltdown Man. > **[Piltdown Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man)** > > The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from its announcement in 1912, the remains were still broadly accepted for many years, and the falsity of the hoax was only definitively demonstrated in 1953. An extensive scientific review in 2016 established that amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson was responsible for the fraudulent ... psik ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/147 "2009-08-04T04:07:15Z")
(taking a deep breath, exhaling it deliberately, and repeating several times) I like posting here so I will add… (What is the theme here? PERSONAL FREAKIN’ BELIEFS vs SCIENCE?) (continuing my controlled breathing) …nothing to the discussion. Yeah, that’s what I usually add, but this time it’s even more nothing. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/148 "2009-08-04T04:31:14Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > But you need to distinguish between SCIENCE and Scientists. > > Scientists are just human beings and most of them are not Einsteins. Nobody speaks for science and science can’t talk. > > Never forget the Piltdown Man. > > [Piltdown Man - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man) > > psik Oh yes, lets not forget it. Lets not forget the _scientists_ who exposed it as a hoax, the scientists who didn’t accept it completely, and used science to investigate it. Science is self correcting, precisely because scientists are human. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/149 "2009-08-04T04:34:04Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > I like posting here so I will add… (What is the theme here? PERSONAL FREAKIN’ BELIEFS vs SCIENCE?) > > (continuing my controlled breathing) Do you mean the Piltdown Man wasn’t science? But wasn’t it science until it was revealed to not be science? So how can you be absolutely sure when it IS SCIENCE? BELIEVE NOTHING! Try to understand what you can and want to. When YOU understand it then it’s SCIENCE. Until then it is someone claiming to be a scientist running their mouths. Even if what they say is correct. The Big Bang was just like the Resurrection. They didn’t get it on video tape. 😃 😃 😃 psik ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/150 "2009-08-04T04:40:59Z")
As the OP, let me disavow any connection or endorsement of this moron’s views. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/151 "2009-08-04T11:13:12Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > As the OP, let me disavow any connection or endorsement of this moron’s views. That is most wise. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/152 "2009-08-04T16:19:50Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > As the OP, let me disavow any connection or endorsement of this moron’s views. LOL My point is, “How many people **BELIEVED** that the Piltdown Man business WAS SCIENCE?” for a period of time. How many things have gotten the label SCIENCE and been regarded as correct and then later proved wrong? That is what is funny about that book on String Theory. If the science is so sophisticated that you can’t understand it for yourself then you are back to taking someone else’s word. You can’t tell whether they are correct or not. psik ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/153 "2009-08-04T18:04:24Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > My point is, “How many people **BELIEVED** that the Piltdown Man business WAS SCIENCE?” for a period of time. How many things have gotten the label SCIENCE and been regarded as correct and then later proved wrong? Oh golly, you mean people aren’t perfect? Say it isn’t so! :rolleyes: It is science that corrects these things. Science allows for new evidence and changes accordingly. Science follows the evidence, there is no need for belief. If the evidence is wrong or incomplete, than new evidence changes it. > [@](#): > > That is what is funny about that book on String Theory. If the science is so sophisticated that you can’t understand it for yourself then you are back to taking someone else’s word. You can’t tell whether they are correct or not. Do you drive a car? Did you buy a car from someone who’s word you took that it would function correctly and not explode, or did you build it with your own two hands from metal you mined yourself? Or do you only apply this ‘you can’t tell whether they are correct or not’ policy to some things and not others? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/154 "2009-08-04T20:06:40Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Do you drive a car? Did you buy a car from someone who’s word you took that it would function correctly and not explode, or did you build it with your own two hands from metal you mined yourself? Or do you only apply this ‘you can’t tell whether they are correct or not’ policy to some things and not others? I’m guessing his computer is powered by moonbeams and leprechaun juice. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/155 "2009-08-05T21:41:48Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Oh golly, you mean people aren’t perfect? Say it isn’t so! > > :rolleyes: It is science that corrects these things. Science allows for new evidence and changes accordingly. Science follows the evidence, there is no need for belief. If the evidence is wrong or incomplete, than new evidence changes it. Science is an ABSTRACTION. Science doesn’t DO ANYTHING. Human beings using the scientific method make decisions about things. But if you don’t understand the subject how do you know whether they were correct or not? So how do YOU decide what is SCIENCE. As I have been saying. I don’t regard it as 100% unless I understand it. You can make whatever evaluation you want. It is not my fault that you only think in terms of TRUE and FALSE. > [@](#): > > Did you buy a car from someone who’s word you took that it would function correctly and not explode, or did you build it with your own two hands I understood planned obsolescence was going on in cars before I graduated from grade school. I have never owned a new car. I haven’t been to an auto show in more than 30 years. I don’t care what any of that under engineered crap looks like. Notice that our genius economists don’t tell us the total we lose in depreciation on that junk every year. But when we buy more new ones they add it to GDP. Economics is SO SCIENTIFIC! 😃😃 [http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529](http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529) psik ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/156 "2009-08-05T22:17:39Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > Science is an ABSTRACTION. Science doesn’t DO ANYTHING. > > Human beings using the scientific method make decisions about things. But if you don’t understand the subject how do you know whether they were correct or not? So how do YOU decide what is SCIENCE. I don’t need to understand it know if they were correct. I can’t build my own computer from sand and copper, but that doesn’t mean I reject the concept as incorrect. I don’t need to know if they were incorrect or not, the stuff they produce works. Your outlook indicates a lack of understand of science. > [@](#): > > As I have been saying. I don’t regard it as 100% unless I understand it. You can make whatever evaluation you want. It is not my fault that you only think in terms of TRUE and FALSE. You still haven’t explained how you come up with you percentages. If you’re producing them rectally because having a number makes you feel better, then say so. > [@](#): > > I understood planned obsolescence was going on in cars before I graduated from grade school. I have never owned a new car. I haven’t been to an auto show in more than 30 years. I don’t care what any of that under engineered crap looks like. > > Notice that our genius economists don’t tell us the total we lose in depreciation on that junk every year. But when we buy more new ones they add it to GDP. Economics is SO SCIENTIFIC! 😃😃 You do realize this has nothing to do with my question right? You totally avoided it and went off on some tangent about economics and automotive conspiracies. If you could answer my actual question, that would be great. ---
**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:** [August 5, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/157 "2009-08-05T22:24:48Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > Science is an ABSTRACTION. Science doesn’t DO ANYTHING. > > Human beings using the scientific method make decisions about things. But if you don’t understand the subject how do you know whether they were correct or not? So how do YOU decide what is SCIENCE. Good. The Piltdown man wasn’t science. Neither is a dinosaur or a nuclear reactor. Science is a process. The process by which the supposed fossil was doubted and eventually revealed as a hoax, that was science. > [@](#): > > As I have been saying. I don’t regard it as 100% unless I understand it. You can make whatever evaluation you want. It is not my fault that you only think in terms of TRUE and FALSE. > > psik No, it shouldn’t be 100% even if you do understand it. You might be wrong, the information might be wrong, or new information might be uncovered. Now, let’s look at your 50%, Say you have an item which you know nothing about, except that it can be in one of two classes. You’d say the probability would be 50%. But what about one of 3 classes? One of 100? The only real answer to the question of what the probability is is “I don’t know.” Your fallacy is very common, though. I’ve seen experiments showing people tend to assign equal probabilities in this case, even when the results of doing so are absurd. Saying “I don’t know” takes some practice. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/158 "2009-08-06T05:17:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Now, let’s look at your 50%, Say you have an item which you know nothing about, except that it can be in one of two classes. You’d say the probability would be 50%. But what about one of 3 classes? One of 100? The only real answer to the question of what the probability is is “I don’t know.” Your fallacy is very common, though. I’ve seen experiments showing people tend to assign equal probabilities in this case, even when the results of doing so are absurd. Saying “I don’t know” takes some practice. Obviously that only applies to the cases where the choices are true or false. If you want to make up situations with more choices and accuse me of being so stupid that I think only true and false applies to EVERYTHING, be my guest. I couldn’t care less. Here is a definition of science: [http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html](http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html) It isn’t JUST THE PROCESS. It is the knowledge that results from the process. I am simply saying every individual has the right to make their own value judgment about how much to trust that knowledge. I am saying not everyone has to agree 100%. If you trust it more than I do that is your business. But I haven’t seen a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC so you can trust anything you want. I think it is very UNSCIENTIFIC to not demand that information. But how many people regarded the Piltdown Man as science in 1925? 😃😃 I think a lot of people are just uncomfortable with uncertainty. They want a warm and fuzzy SCIENTIFIC blanket to hold onto and our knowledge of reality just isn’t as good as they want to believe. 20 years wasted on string theory!?! That is rich. psik ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/159 "2009-08-06T05:36:58Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > But I haven’t seen a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC so you can trust anything you want. I think it is very UNSCIENTIFIC to not demand that information. But how many people regarded the Piltdown Man as science in 1925? 😃😃 It was embarrassing, but not all scientists accepted Piltdown man. > **[Creationist Arguments: Piltdown Man](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html)** > [@](#): > > In 1953 Piltdown was discovered to be a hoax, consisting of a modern human skull and an orang-utan jaw. Well before then, Piltdown had become a puzzling anomaly when compared to all other hominid fossils, and the scientific community was relieved to be able to forget about it. > > The paleontological community was horribly embarrassed by the uncovering of Piltdown, and justifiably so. A number of scientists had made what were in retrospect extremely foolish statements about the skull, elaborating on its “unmistakably apelike characteristics.” Piltdown’s acceptance was probably helped by the fact that it conformed to contemporary beliefs about what a primitive human skull would look like. In fact a number of scientists did believe that the cranium and jaw were not from the same creature, but no-one had suspected forgery. > > Who committed the hoax? The most obvious suspect is Charles Dawson, Piltdown’s discoverer, but virtually every person involved with Piltdown has been accused of participating in the hoax at one time or another. You can find comprehensive lists of all the accusations at the following pages by Richard Harter and Tom Turrittin. > > The claim is sometimes made by creationists that 500 doctoral dissertations were written about Piltdown Man. This claim is false. If any doctoral dissertations were written about Piltdown Man, the number must have been very small. It was probably zero, based on the absence of dissertations in Piltdown bibliographies. > [@psikeyhackr](#): > > I think a lot of people are just uncomfortable with uncertainty. They want a warm and fuzzy SCIENTIFIC blanket to hold onto and our knowledge of reality just isn’t as good as they want to believe. 20 years wasted on string theory!?! That is rich. > > psik Not as rich as wasting several years making models with toothpicks. 😛 ---
**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:** [August 6, 2009, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639/160 "2009-08-06T06:12:34Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > Obviously that only applies to the cases where the choices are true or false. If you want to make up situations with more choices and accuse me of being so stupid that I think only true and false applies to EVERYTHING, be my guest. I couldn’t care less. Please explain why choosing one of two things is fundamentally different from choosing one of 3, or 4, or a million. Please also explain why the statement “I don’t know anything that would let me decide” leads directly to “they are equally likely.” > [@](#): > > Here is a definition of science: > > [http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html](http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html) > > It isn’t JUST THE PROCESS. It is the knowledge that results from the process. I am simply saying every individual has the right to make their own value judgment about how much to trust that knowledge. I am saying not everyone has to agree 100%. If you trust it more than I do that is your business. Not a meaning I’ve seen frequently if at all in 40 years of being involved with it. The site seems to be down, so I can’t check the details. And I agree that everyone has the right to their judgment. People have the right to be creationists. But we also have the right to point out that educated judgments count more than ignorant ones. And I don’t trust it as much as understand it, being on the inside, at least of my little branch. > [@](#): > > But I haven’t seen a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC so you can trust anything you want. I think it is very UNSCIENTIFIC to not demand that information. But how many people regarded the Piltdown Man as science in 1925? 😃😃 > > I think a lot of people are just uncomfortable with uncertainty. They want a warm and fuzzy SCIENTIFIC blanket to hold onto and our knowledge of reality just isn’t as good as they want to believe. 20 years wasted on string theory!?! That is rich. > > psik I assure you I have better things to do than study wacko conspiracy theories, which are no more credible coming from the left than from the right. As for string theory, do you have any idea of what its current status is? How long did people play around with the ether before defining the experiment that would falsify it? I guess it is absurd to think it would take a whole 20 years to understand the very basic structure of the universe. How very lazy of the physicists! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-beliefs-based-on-an-appeal-to-authority-in-science/504639.md?page=9)