Gallup's 1991 poll showed that 95% of scientists (including non-biologists) accept evolution, with biologists above 99%.
You realize this is classic argumentum ad populum, don't you?
51 comments
Sorry, but I'm a little slow today.
Rusty, could you explain to me what a classic argumentum ad populum is?
Actually, no. Argumentum ad Populum is only for the general population, NOT restricted to those who have actual training in the field. Those are the people commonly referred to as "EXPERTS".
EXPERTS, by definition, know more about the given subject than the "man in the street".
Completely missing the point, he doesn't quote the stats to prove evolution is right, he quotes them to show Bill Maher is right when stating that most scientist accept evolution. Which is not an argument ad populum at all, just merely stating a fact.
Besides, arguments ad populum are not good when used by atheists, but when it's theists using them, they're suddenly OK. Double standards for the win allright?
No it isn't. A poll showing how many members of the general public believe something would be. But it isn't when the people who hold the belief are experts in the subject matter. For example, if 95% of doctors believe smoking is bad for you, that's not an agumentum ad populum, because the doctors can be expected to have special knowledge of the subject.
While I would agree that believing something because 95-99% of the rest of the population does doesn't make it true, the fact that 95-99% of scientists believe evolutionary theory means that it's a valid science based on facts. It also refutes the claims made by creationists that most scientists have discarded evolution in favor of Intelligent Design.
It wouldn't even be an argument ad populum, it would be an argument from authority, if it were a fallacy at all. Scientists (especially biologists) are usually seen as the authorities when it comes to evolution or, well, anything scientific.
In any case, I would have to see how this poll factoid is used in an article to know if the author is using it as an appeal to authority or not.
You do realize that biologists know quite a bit more about their area of expertise than you, mongoloid.
Also, Argument from fallacy is not cool.
Ten billion flies can't be wrong - eat shit.
They are asking people who have studied science for years and years, who actually know what they are talking about. How are they "populum"?
Asking random people in Times Square, and then state that the result was the Truth, that would be more of an argumentum ad populum.
"You realize this is classic argumentum ad populum, don't you?"
Actually, it's an argument from authority which, in this case, isn't fallacious since the people being asked actually are authorities on the subject at hand.
(...)with biologists above 99%
I have my money on option A
ad populum
Like Godwin's ad hitlerum
No, no it isn't, because we aren't asking laypeople, we're asking EXPERTS IN THE FIELD about THE FIELD.
...
No, the success of Britney Spears is what you're talking about. It's a matter of tastes/opinion, or at least over-exposure.
This is 99% of people in the field we are discussing saying, "Yes, this appears to be the most logical conclusion to draw from the current assemblage of evidence."
> You realize this is classic argumentum ad populum, don't you?
You realise the creationists use the exact same argument style? If you're calling bullshit on this, you can't condemn either statement - you have to disagree with both.
But I don't see what the problem is in this particular case. Creationists claim there's a significant controversy within scientific community over the theory of evolution. Actual opinion polls, like this, tell us otherwise. The poll can settle this argument. This poll cannot validate the theory of evolution as a legitimate theory, but it can validate the fact that there's no controversy among scientists over the theory of evolution.
Let's see:
"You realize this is classic argumentum ad populum, don't you?"
"God did it. I believe it. That settles it!"
You realise this is classic Argumentum ad ignorantiam . And also, as all of you Christian fundies accept it without discussion, debate, disagreement and dissention, Argumentum ad Populum
Don't you.
@aaa
"You do realize that biologists know quite a bit more about their area of expertise than you, mongoloid.
Also, Argument from fallacy is not cool."
Which is why Richard Dawkins is a fellow of the Royal Society, and Stephen Hawking is a professor of Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University.
And Rusty Entrekin isn't.
What a nutcase that Entrekin is. Why, if most biologists believe it, more than likely it IS true! This is not argumentum ad populum at all. Only an appeal to expert authorities in the field, who are so trustworthy you can safely bet your eternal soul on them (but not to worry, because many, perhaps most of them will tell you that you do not have one). Why, the nerve of that guy!
this does not mean to imply an ad populum or appeal to scientific authority, but it rather states that:
scientists only believe evidenced theories.
scientists believe evolution.
therefore, there is probably some sweet, nice, tasty evidences for evolution.
No, scientists, biologists in particular, are not "populum", stupid, they are professionals.
Populum refers to the "general public," or everyday people, of which you are a part. Scientists, who have studied and trained for years in their chosen fields, are considered experts.
Actually, isn't this closer to appeal to authority? Although, tbh, I've never quite understood why that's considered a logical fallacy unless their authority does not apply to the subject.
Since when are scientists, the elite, the "populum", you know, the "people". Just joking.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
