4 ms·
Just wanted to point out: the appeal to authority argument is only a fallacy when the cited source is not a legitimate authority. Theologians would want to dis
by ericwaller 17y ago
Just wanted to point out: the appeal to authority argument is only a fallacy when the cited source is not a legitimate authority.
Theologians would want to disagree, but I would argue that an overwhelming number of scientists does constitute a legitimate authority on whether or not something (god or otherwise) does or does not exist.
- kirse 17y agoJust because a large group of people hold a certain unverifiable opinion does not mean it has any more authority or validity than another unverifiable opinion. Even if it did, you've lost that argument already on the basic fact that there are far, far more "theists" than "atheists". Example: Scientists would want to disagree, but I would argue that the overwhelming number of people in the world who believe in a god (of some form) does constitute a legitimate authority on whether or not something (god or otherwise) does or does not exist. See how that works?
- ericwaller 17y agoI'd agree that there can be no successful argument for or against an unverifiable opinion, consensus-based or not (taking your first point a bit further). But my claim is that a consensus of scientists is an authority on matters of fact of the natural world, specifically. In the same way that a consensus of programmers would constitute an authority on programming. So that it's fair for Dawkins, who views the (non)?existence of god as a fact of the natural world, to appeal to scientists as an authority.