In regard to scientific claims: is the following statement in Wikipedia accurate?

Question

In the main page of the science portal of Wikipedia there is a statement that, "Science typically, therefore, rejects...arguments from authority..." The link to the subtitled article, "Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority" has the statement:

"A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities. If scientific testing of the claim is not possible, then the majority of expert opinions is sometimes used to develop a consensus."

Do you consider this to be an accurate statement?

I went to Wikipedia.com and after selecting "English" I clicked on the "Science" portal. In the introductory statement was the link to "arguments from authority" from which I found the statement below.

Answer 1

I agree with Gary above... (that boy is a genius)

Your quote, a bullet-point under; "Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority" (see 2nd link) - is (perhaps mistakenly) vague...

As stated, it errs on the fact that if x can't be tested, it no longer falls under the domain of science, it is philosophy...

I would recommend having the author clarify, or remove, that point (the author might have been referring to the popular INTERPRETATION of existing scientific evidence and its use in public policy - a good guess if I do say so - but just that, a guess. We'd have to ask her what she meant).

As science relies on the evidence and NOT authoritative claims, this statement represents a contradiction.

Answer 2

Not knowing the full context of the statement, I tentatively disagree. If scientific testing of a claim is not possible, then it is not scientific and it ends there. Such is the claim for a supernatural supreme being. The issue falls outside the bound of science (there is no gray area, it is not a testable hypothesis, period).

On the other hand, the Noah flood tale, if real, can be examined. To date, there is no empirical evidence that supports such an event. There are no disagreements among ‘qualified authorities’. Similarly, there is no scientific evidence that contradicts evolution, and an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence.

Global warming certainly was hotly debated among scientists, at least until the last decade or so. Since the late 1990s, the majority (a clear and significant majority) of climate scientists have come to agree on the concept that climate has been (and is) altered due to anthropogenic causes. Since most of the opposing voices are funded by corporations that have a biased interest in the results, it makes sense to give such opinion less weight than to the opinion of equally qualified, but financially unattached, scientists.

Answer 3

Yes, it is accurate - insofar as it goes.

What it neglects to say is that science is constantly questioning itself ... which means that although the ability to test something RIGHT NOW does not exist, it doesn't mean there will NEVER be a scientific means of testing the claim.

Take for instance the claim that the world was flat. At one point in history, that's all anyone COULD believe, because there was no means of determining otherwise. But that didn't stop folks from questioning the theory ... and developing means to prove (or in this case, disprove!) the claim.

Answer 4

You've got to start somewhere. It's always much easier to poke holes in a standing theory than to come up with something completely new. The entire point of the "consensus" is for it to be disproven, and replaced by something based on experimental data. In turn, that theory only stands as long as there is no new data to refute it, in which case we arrive at ANOTHER conclusion, and so on, and so on. This is what we call progress.

Answer 5

i do- it's nearly impossible to prove any scientific statement or theory right, therefore it is often the objective to attempt to prove it wrong. If it can't be proven wrong, and the majority of expert opinions can be proven wrong, then that would give you a good idea of the validity of your statement.

Answer 6

That sounds like a very reasonable approach - providing that the so called consensus is presented as such and not presented as an indisputable fact.

Answer 7

Yes. In very simple terms, it is always better to prove something, than to take someones word for it.

Answer 8

absolutely!! if two disagree then more are needed to resolve the argument.

Answer 9

Please provide a link to the article do that we can read it in full context.

Answer 10

Sure, why not. It is above my head, haha