4 ms·
He did have a concern about the data. His concern that was it was not peer-reviewed. Had the data come from someone with a proven track record in the field, he
by jakevn 12y ago
He did have a concern about the data. His concern that was it was not peer-reviewed.
Had the data come from someone with a proven track record in the field, he may have found it worth his time to peer review it himself.
Appeal to authority is not always a fallacy. It would have been fallacious if he was outright denying or accepting a hypothesis as being the logical conclusion based on one's standing. All that I read from it, however, was that he had a hard time believing it, and would not spend the time to look into the data personally, but that it should be reviewed.
I don't think it's illogical to take more seriously the hypothesis of someone with a proven track record of good research.
- notacoward 12y agoIf he couldn't spend the time to examine it, he should have just said that instead of taking the time to blather about journalistic vs. academic review processes. Clearly he did have the time; he just used it poorly.
- sanderjd 12y agoYour argument is interesting, but it seems to boil down to dismissing the entire system of peer reviewed journals. If they can't be appealed to, and everything needs to be independently researched based on personal expertise, then they have no purpose. Would you agree with that?
- mmusson 12y agoI took his meaning to be that appealing to peer reviewed journals as an "authority" is what is wrong. The value of the peer review system is the rigorous process and the continuing search for the truth.