So-and-so professors believe in "A", so "A" is correct.
Or vice versa. "So-and-so doesn't even have a high degree in this field. Therefore, his claim is wrong.
Is that a good argument? This is an interesting question. A little analysis of it.
This argument is based on the fact that a person with years of experience in a field has credentials. So what he said would be true. A person's experience and training in a field definitely weighs in on his claim. It's just that there is no guarantee that anything will be right.
Many times the position of the best scientists about science can be wrong. If a scientist is awarded the Nobel Prize, his opinion is considered more credible and historically it has led to the popularity of many misconceptions. A great example of this was Lions Paling.
Lions Paling won two Nobel Prizes. Chemistry in 1954 and Peace in 1962. There is no doubt that he was an excellent researcher but later in his life he found a deal. He thought that a large amount of vitamin C could help fight infection. He coined the term orthomolecular medicine and it was part of it. He continued to take large amounts of vitamin C. (Vitamin C is also a common misconception in treating colds).
This was an example of a great scientist applying the wrong principles to a case. It was not a bad idea for a chemist to think about the chemical activity of a biological substance, but it was wrong to use it for medical research. Paling's ideas were not supported in clinical research. The basis of their idea was wrong. Medical science is advancing, but our physical system can be called ridiculously complex. Bringing basic science to clinical claims was Paling's mistake.
It is a fallacy to say that "orthomolecular medicine is the right treatment because Double Nobel Prize-winning scientist Paling believed it." (And that doesn't mean Paling wasn't a great scientist).
.. .. .. .. ...
But keep in mind that although scientists may be wrong, it is very likely that a scientist trained in their field will be more correct than a general opinion. The possibility of error in the opinion of a scientist does not mean at all that the idea that came to my mind yesterday is correct.
And if the vast majority of scientists agree with an idea, it means that the idea has been tested and tested. If you have a long way to go before you realize that daily potato pratha will cure cancer or you have found a unique way to travel fast with light. Many people have thought about it. Now try to find out where you are making a mistake.
.. .. .. .. ...
Is the opinion of an expert in your field a good argument? Yes, that's a good argument.
But one thing is for sure. The condition is that the person who gave the opinion should be really an expert and should have given such an opinion.
For example, it is not the expert's opinion to call a donor on TV as a medical expert. Or "Einstein said ..." Let me check if Einstein really said that. Or "Dentists only prescribe my brown toothpaste" is the opinion of the advertiser, not the expert.
Some examples from everyday conversation.
"Sadiqin was influenced by Picasso in painting because I found out about it from a WhatsApp forwarded message."
WhatsApp's message is not an expert's opinion, it will be called a misleading appeal to a non-authority.
"Eating goat's thigh causes cancer because scientists say so."
It is a mistake to name an anonymous scientist here. We do not know which scientist said that, and we do not have the means to know how reliable such research is.
"Britain's exit from the EU is dangerous for humanity because Stephen Hawking said so."
Here the opinion of non-experts in the relevant field is misleading. Stephen Hawking was a very good astrologer, but that doesn't make him an expert on political issues. This does not necessarily mean that their opinion is not good. Nor does it mean that they cannot comment on political issues. It is a fallacy to argue that "as Stephen Hawking said, this opinion is correct."
"I am taking this medicine because I have been prescribed by a doctor."
That's the decent thing to do, and it should end there. Here is an appeal from the right authority. The opinion of an expert in the relevant field (if his medical training is OK) can be trusted.
.. .. .. .. .. ...
Can an expert's opinion be wrong? Absolutely possible.
Is the consensus of most experts in your field a good argument? Yes, this is a very good argument, even if it means that the error rate is not zero.
And the extraordinary claim made in the media by an untrained person with the necessary knowledge in a field that will revolutionize the field? New medicine to be made? New way of energy? Running an engine with water? Telepathy? Any new explanation of archeology and history?
No, don't waste time in them. It is better to change the channel and watch something else.
0 Comments