"Appeal to Popularity" vs. "Just Plain Wrong"

[Upchurch]

Reading Ian's Refuting the notion that there is no evidence for a God (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19362) thread, Ian posts a poll to get people's opinions on how well he presents his argument (i.e. whether he's right or not), which eventually leads to this exchange:
Originally posted by Interesting IanOriginally posted by K-W

I would think that it is a tid bit more likely that youve made some kind of error in your logic than it is that 80% of the people on this forum are completely stupid.

Just a thought.
This is just absurd! This is a skeptics forum. Also I find that Skeptics have an incredibly naive understanding of what constitutes "God". They invariably hold a "God of the gaps" conceptualisation of God. Also a lot of them seem to conceive him (were he to exist) as being anthropomorphic!

If you went to a believers forum of some kind then I imagine that 80% or more would vote for something that you would find preposterous. Hell, that even I might find preposterous!

Besides it's just a fallacy to suppose that just because most people believe something to be true that therefore it must be, or is extremely likely to be true.

Your fallacy is known as Ad Populum
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/AdPopulum.html
In dealing with such posters with alternative views of, well, reality (note, I refrained from saying "kooks"), I'm tempted to just yell out, "You moron! No one but you thinks that is the way the universe works!" which is definitely an appeal to popularity and not a true argument.

Sometimes, however, a varient of that slips out and these posts point out my appeal to popularity, real or implied, as an error on my part (which it is) and a verification of their argument (which it is not). In other words, "you made an argumentative error so I must be right." Further, the fact that they don't have popular opinion on their side seems to imply that they must be correct. For another example, "There was a time popular opinion said man would never walk on the moon. They weren't right then and they aren't right now."

My question is this: What is the deciding factor between "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong" and "Everyone else thinks I'm wrong, maybe I should rethink my position"? How can one convince someone else, or oneself, of this?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What is the deciding factor between "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong" and "Everyone else thinks I'm wrong, maybe I should rethink my position"? A false choice? Why not: "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong, however, since everyone else thinks I'm wrong, maybe I should rethink my position."

[Skeptical Greg]

Besides it's just a fallacy to suppose that just because most people believe something to be true that therefore it must be, or is extremely likely to be true.

I think I will start a poll asking how many people believe intrsting I, said/believes this.

It seems to contardict his assertion that something (psy effect, etc,, ) being reported enough times, gives it some basis in fact..

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Diogenes

It seems to contardict his assertion that something (psy effect, etc,, ) being reported enough times, gives it some basis in fact.. I'm not a big Ian reader, can you post a link to an example of this?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
A false choice? Why not: "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong, however, since everyone else thinks I'm wrong, maybe I should rethink my position." To be honest, how often do you suppose this happens? Think of some of the minority opinion holders on this board. How often do they explore if they are right?

edited to add: you know, without someone forcing them to examine their position?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Upchurch
To be honest, how often do you suppose this happens? Think of some of the minority opinion holders on this board. How often do they explore if they are right?

edited to add: you know, without someone forcing them to examine their position? Some folks are very willing to reconsider when others point out the errors they have made. But, these folks aren't making public fools of themselves shouting down their opponents, so maybe we just don't notice that it's closer to the norm.

Is there a correlation between an individual's likelihood of being unwilling to critically examine his or her position, and that individual’s likelihood of believing things that almost no other people would believe? I think so.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
My question is this: What is the deciding factor between "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong" and "Everyone else thinks I'm wrong, maybe I should rethink my position"? How can one convince someone else, or oneself, of this? Not too long ago, there was a thread about skepticism, and what is means. It discussed that a skeptic must be willing to look critically at their own views, to ensure they are sound.

I think that is the deciding factor. If I have examined evidence from all sides of an argument, and reached a conclusion based on that and sound judgement, then I'm going to assume I'm right (or, at the very least, more right than the other guy). If my opinion happens to be in the minority, so be it, it's still what I percieve to be correct.

If, on the other hand, there's an issue that I have an opinion on, but never thought through and researched (and there are plenty of those!) then I will be happy to "look inward" when someone else presents a better argument.

[Dancing David]

Personal integrity:
A truely brave person is willing to examine thier personal belief, even if it hurts, and can understand that they be in the minority and ridiculed for thier beliefs.

I think that an easy test of the validity of an arguement is the ratio of funkons(cool sub atomic particles) to popons (popular subatomics particles) as elaborated In Funkphysics for Dummies.

Funk On

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm not a big Ian reader, can you post a link to an example of this?

I'll have to dig something up.. Perhaps Ian will clarify what I may be assuming.

There was a discussion, where Ian proposed that countless anecdotal claims for a so called ' para ' phenomena, gave such a claim credence, even in the absence of non-anecdotal evidence.

If I cannot substantiate this, I will acknowledge and apologize for any seeming slight..

[Yahzi]

At some point, other people's positions matter. Multiple viewpoints are how we defeat subjectivism. Other people's perceptions and input are necessary for this.

In other words, other people's positions are data that must be accounted for by your theory (whatever it may be). Thus, you need to show not only how you are right, but how they could be wrong about their conclusions but still right about their experiences and perceptions.

Which is why we are all so fascinated by neurological explanations of god belief.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahzi
In other words, other people's positions are data that must be accounted for by your theory (whatever it may be). Thus, you need to show not only how you are right, but how they could be wrong about their conclusions but still right about their experiences and perceptions.I think, rather, that other people's experiences and perceptions are data that must be accounted for by your theory, rather than their positions.

Otherwise, I couldn't agree more. This is one point that I find extremely difficult to get across to those posters with alternate views of physics. (three guesses about who I'm talking about) No matter what their theory is, it must account for observable phenomena (particle/wave duality, relativistic effects, etc.). If their theory doesn't account for such things, it is incomplete, at best. When I try to press this point, I find most posters simply ignore the existance of such phenomena.

[evildave]

It's very simple:

If you think YOU are right, and everyone else is wrong, then simply devise a test we can all repeat at our leisure to prove it one way or another.

Otherwise, you should *expect* people not to take your side.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Yahzi
At some point, other people's positions matter. Multiple viewpoints are how we defeat subjectivism. Other people's perceptions and input are necessary for this.

In other words, other people's positions are data that must be accounted for by your theory (whatever it may be). Thus, you need to show not only how you are right, but how they could be wrong about their conclusions but still right about their experiences and perceptions.


I don't think I agree with this. Many of us are very familiar with people so eaten up with Jesus, they can't think straight. I was debating a Christian once and trapped him like a dog with something he said. There were other (different faction) Christians around who knew I had just nailed him. (They were getting a chuckle out of it because they didn't believe the same things he believed) Well, he used the Soviet style of arguing from that point on. He just denied he was wrong.

When it comes to matters of religion, other peoples pro-religious positions are worthless.

[Dub]

The problem is with people that "know they are right". These are the people that will cling to their beliefs inspite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, i.e. Faith.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I'll have to dig something up.. Perhaps Ian will clarify what I may be assuming.

There was a discussion, where Ian proposed that countless anecdotal claims for a so called ' para ' phenomena, gave such a claim credence, even in the absence of non-anecdotal evidence.

If I cannot substantiate this, I will acknowledge and apologize for any seeming slight..

If some phenomenon has been reported throughout history and across all cultures, then this would constitute evidence that the phenomenon occurs, yes. So take ghosts. People experience ghosts and have done so throughout history. I therefore would be skeptical with the claim that people are just making it up on all occassions. An hallucination? I would take that as meaning that the origin of the experience resides wholly in the mind. Certainly that is possible, although I would have reservations with people saying it is likely. But you should bear in mind that a hallucination or the idea that it is a discarnate spirit or whatever, doesn't exhaust all possibilities.

But anyway, if you think about it, it is absurd to suggest that countless anecdotes do not constitute any evidence whatsoever for the said phenomenon. Skeptics have denied the existence of meterites, lucid dreaming, NDE's, ball lightning, and been most venomous in their dismissal of all these phenomena. Now they have all been accepted (well, apart from maybe ball lightning). But according to skeptics the fact that countless people have witnessed meteorites constitutes no evidence whatsoever for their reality. Ridiculous!

[Dancing David]

Maybe there are story tellers who test the credulity of people throughout the ages, I did see a witch fly a cross a ditch once, well she didn't really fly she more floated up in the air and the wind blew her across....

Funk On

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But anyway, if you think about it, it is absurd to suggest that countless anecdotes do not constitute any evidence whatsoever for the said phenomenon. Skeptics have denied the existence of meterites, lucid dreaming, NDE's, ball lightning, and been most venomous in their dismissal of all these phenomena. Now they have all been accepted (well, apart from maybe ball lightning). But according to skeptics the fact that countless people have witnessed meteorites constitutes no evidence whatsoever for their reality. Ridiculous!
Well, you don't take into account that we humans tend to make mistakes. A lot. We have selective memory, combined memories, and a tendency to force experiences into patterns that may or may not be reflective of reality.

That the reality of meteorites are now accepted does not mean that all or, really any, anecdotal evidence should be accepted. What's the difference between the current outlook on meteorites and ghosts is that meteorites have been objectively and repeatively shown to exist. In other words, I can see one on a table and the next day someone else can see the exact same thing on the same table.

It is not absurd to suggest that countless anecdotes do not constitute any evidence whatsoever for the said phenomenon because anecdotal evidence has been consistantly shown to be unreliable.

[Michael Redman]

If some phenomenon has been reported throughout history and across all cultures, then this would constitute NO evidence that the phenomenon occurs, yes. So take A FLAT EARTH. People experience A FLAT EARTH and have done so throughout history. I therefore would NOT be skeptical with the claim that people are just making it up on all occassions. An hallucination? I would take that as meaning that the origin of the experience resides wholly in the mind. Certainly that is possible, although I would have reservations with people saying it is likely. But you should bear in mind that a hallucination or the idea that it is AN ILLUSION or whatever, doesn't exhaust all possibilities.

But anyway, if you think about it, it is absurd to suggest that countless anecdotes DO constitute any evidence whatsoever for the said phenomenon. Skeptics have denied the existence of meterites, lucid dreaming, NDE's, ball lightning, and been most venomous in their DEMAND FOR PROOF of all these phenomena. Now they have all been PROVEN (well, apart from maybe ball lightning). But according to skeptics the fact that countless people have witnessed meteorites constitutes no evidence whatsoever for their reality. RATIONAL!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

................But according to skeptics the fact that countless people have witnessed meteorites constitutes no evidence whatsoever for their reality. RATIONAL!

You lost me..

Not sure what position you are taking on this..



But I would agree, that countless witnesses of the visual manifestations of meteorites, does not constitute evidence of their physical properties until after the fact ( of their physical examination and an understanding of what takes place when they enter the atmosphere..)

However, those countless observations, is considerable evidence that ' something ' is happening, even if that something is mass hallucination. The mechnics of which, would still need to be explained, to satisfy your average skeptic.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You lost me..

Not sure what position you are taking on this..I was just trying to fix Ian's post making as few changes as possible.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I was just trying to fix Ian's post making as few changes as possible.

Understood...

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Upchurch
No matter what their theory is, it must account for observable phenomena (particle/wave duality, relativistic effects, etc.). If their theory doesn't account for such things, it is incomplete, at best. When I try to press this point, I find most posters simply ignore the existance of such phenomena.

Reasonable people that are well read (and lets say, include literature such as science periodicals in their reading) and with some scientific literacy may consider these explanations. How much of the general public in Europe or The U.S. are well read, have been exposed to these observable phenomena, or are scientifically literate?

I am not privy to all the data collected on scientific literacy on adults, but from reading SI articles that examined polls the numbers appear to be less than 20% of the general public is scientificly literate.

Depending on the source of the statistics there is indication that the US adult population's literacy in general (is reading comprehension what is tested? the sources rarely say) is no where near 100%. I don't think adult populations anywhere in G7 countries is 100%.

Literacy levels of posters on this forum must be on average higher than the general public's (this is subjective, and based on very poor data collecting on my part. ;)

I have no way of knowing what the scientific literacy of people in this forum is or how well read they are on the phenomena you expound on UpChurch, but I suspect due to work, commitments, and interests, that most people can not or will not observe, investigate, or evaluate these phenomena.

Speaking to your examples: I for one have no idea what particle/wave duality is, and have had a very limited exposure to relativistic effects.

Literacy in general, scientific literacy, exposure and experience are all going to affect a person's ability to comprehend what is posted on this forum. If a poster is ignoring posts or requests to consider alternative explanations, it may be that the person can not comprehend the response to their post.

Speaking for myself:

Some things on this forum go over my head. Sometimes I am not ready to investigate a complex or logical argument because I lack context, experience, and or imagination.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Well, you don't take into account that we humans tend to make mistakes. A lot. We have selective memory, combined memories, and a tendency to force experiences into patterns that may or may not be reflective of reality.

That the reality of meteorites are now accepted does not mean that all or, really any, anecdotal evidence should be accepted. What's the difference between the current outlook on meteorites and ghosts is that meteorites have been objectively and repeatively shown to exist. In other words, I can see one on a table and the next day someone else can see the exact same thing on the same table.

It is not absurd to suggest that countless anecdotes do not constitute any evidence whatsoever for the said phenomenon because anecdotal evidence has been consistantly shown to be unreliable.

True on all accounts,

but some claims made and presented in the form of anecdotal evidence are more likely to be accepted as accurate than others. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as you have reminded us occassionally UpChurch.

I will not check out every claim nor demand people present more evidence than the origional anecdote if the claim seems plausible. This is really subjectuve, I know. Example:

If someone claims that it is snowing in mid May at a location above the 58th parallel (north), I will accept the claim, because I live above the 58th and have experienced snow in Mid may. This claim was not so extraordinary that I felt inclined to ask or seek for more evidence than the anecdote.

If someone tells me there is a traffic jam down town due to an accident that will hold up traffic for hours, and that it would be best to find an alternate route, I will find an alternate route to my destination, I will not seek an independent confirmation that there was an accident. If some one claims that there is a traffic jam downtown because it is choas as a result of a meteor smashing into downtown I will seek independent confirmation. My experiences influence the amount of evidence I am willing to consider before I determine a course of action.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If some phenomenon has been reported throughout history and across all cultures, then this would constitute evidence that the phenomenon occurs, yes. So take ghosts. People experience ghosts and have done so throughout history. I therefore would be skeptical with the claim that people are just making it up on all occassions.

In this country, several years ago, there was a country-wide rash of daycare abuse cases. People were going to jail left and right, based on the eyewitness testimony of 'abused' children. As it turned out the children were "given" the "vision" of their abuse by the psychiatrists examining them.

Now think about growing up always hearing about ghosts, reading about ghosts, seeing ghost movies etc. It stands to reason the mind will manufacture the phenomenon in the circumstances that warrent it. You never hear about ghosts in the middle of the day at the shopping mall. It's always under spooky circumstances.

The Virgin Mary is reported seen down through history. but she never appears at a mall. She appears to ignorant third world children, who are lucky to be sharing an eyebrow. (She appears even though her existence is the result of a mistranslation!)

Stigmata occurs even though crucifiction nails were driven into the wrists, not the hands. The hand holes are the result of paintings done in the middle ages.

The common denominator in all these cases (and more) is the mind!

And as Dan Quayle said at the NAACP meeting, "It's terrible when you lose your mind."

[stamenflicker]

Upchurch,

Majority does not prove truth so much as it lends itself to the likelihood of a thing being true if we accept a statistical model, and we assume that a thing's "meaning" is as solid and tangible as rocks.

Flick

[Baker]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
If some phenomenon has been reported throughout history and across all cultures, then this would constitute NO evidence that the phenomenon occurs, yes. So take A FLAT EARTH. People experience A FLAT EARTH and have done so throughout history. I therefore would NOT be skeptical with the claim that people are just making it up on all occassions. An hallucination? I would take that as meaning that the origin of the experience resides wholly in the mind. Certainly that is possible, although I would have reservations with people saying it is likely. But you should bear in mind that a hallucination or the idea that it is AN ILLUSION or whatever, doesn't exhaust all possibilities.


I understand the point you are trying to make but I think using the belief that the earth is flat isn’t the best example people didn’t experience a flat earth it was just a belief past down from generation to generation.