I'm glad to see someone posting the classic fallacies. Cool. Does that fallacy apply when people say, "the majority of scholars" or "most scientists" or "the great majority of Islamic Imams" hold to such & such belief?
My problem is that I still need to rely upon some level of authority because I'm not a PhD biologist/chemist/astronomer. So how do I determine which folks are reliable authorities? My benchmark is usually to see who is acknowledged as an authority on BOTH sides of a conflict. In this case, it appears that the abiog's don't hold ANY of the creat's as a legitimate authority. But that doesn't fly because the president of the U.S. has a stated position on this matter in terms of public policy. So I'm stuck with finding out what the real numbers of scientists are, whether they are on the order of fruitcakes who believe in astrology, and whether they really do have a leg to stand on.
My suspicion is that the president was in the same position. But when he sends out an invitation to a PhD astronomer to answer some questions, that guy shows up and spends the time to explain things to him. I don't have that kind of authority. So I have to ask myself whether the president went through that kind of exercise before he came out with such a position. From what I've seen about how he operates, the answer is yes, he did deliberate on it with some acknowledged authorities on both sides.
If you want to use the authorities on a subject to back your position that is fine, it isn't a fallacy then. If however you do what both DI and the originators (NCSI I believe) of Project Steve* have done and include authorities that really aren't authorities, then that is using a fallacy. There *are* authorities in the fields of evolution; when comparing, compare only them. I'm not discounting the possibility of the minority being correct, it has happened in the past, but as a general rule the majority of authorities, when they agree, should be taken as support of the theory. Usually, if an idea has any validity, the majority of authorities will, through their own investigation of the primary research, come to accept it. ID has been around, in one form or another for more than 200 years. It is still not accepted by the vast majority of evolutionary scientists.
"My problem is that I still need to rely upon some level of authority because I'm not a PhD biologist/chemist/astronomer. So how do I determine which folks are reliable authorities? My benchmark is usually to see who is acknowledged as an authority on BOTH sides of a conflict. In this case, it appears that the abiog's don't hold ANY of the creat's as a legitimate authority.
There is a difference in the way IDists and scientists work. You will seldom find an IDist publishing a paper critical of other IDists. In science, those that come up with novel approaches, or ideas, that end up having an impact on our knowledge, are given money, and influence. Because of this you will find arguments happening all through science. This may sound like a bad thing, but it isn't, in fact it is the best way to make sure as many ideas as possible are put forward, that published papers use correct methodology and bogus ideas are debunked. An adversarial system is necessary. ID does not have this. The reason for this is the intense push to find facts to prove the point. In ID, as in creation science, the idea is paramount, the evidence for it is not.
Look at the evidence. Look at the problems, and proposed solutions. Compare what is expected, and what is found.
"But that doesn't fly because the president of the U.S. has a stated position on this matter in terms of public policy. So I'm stuck with finding out what the real numbers of scientists are, whether they are on the order of fruitcakes who believe in astrology, and whether they really do have a leg to stand on.
Your president not only considers what scientists say but what his advisers say. Find out the beliefs of his advisers and how much impact and influence on those advisers the two factions have.
" My suspicion is that the president was in the same position. But when he sends out an invitation to a PhD astronomer to answer some questions, that guy shows up and spends the time to explain things to him. I don't have that kind of authority. So I have to ask myself whether the president went through that kind of exercise before he came out with such a position. From what I've seen about how he operates, the answer is yes, he did deliberate on it with some acknowledged authorities on both sides.
He probably did. He probably also took the advice of his closest advisers, none of whom would be considered an authority. The president doesn't have the time to look into the issue fully, so would make the most politically expedient decision.
No matter what the president said, there will be those that jump at any support they can read into the statement, from both sides.