RR&R 29 - Don't Cite Scientific Consensus

I think that people generally have a simplistic understanding of the informal logical fallacies like the argument from authority. A better name for this logical fallacy is the argument from unjustified authority. The "unjustified" is the important part. We cannot all be subject matter experts. Pragmatically speaking, we don't do the research and spend decades of time doing the research like the experts do. We are forced to listen to experts. One should accept a robust scientific consensus because one finds that the methods of science are generally reliable and large consensus opinions of people who employ those methods are going to be generally reliable as well. That's not a guarantee of course. What's truth is not dependent on who speaks it. However sometimes you can only approximate the truth and be less wrong than someone else. In other words you will be less wrong by following a robust scientific consensus more often than going against it and that is the best most of us non subject matter experts can do.

overall, i agree with you, however, many times we do not have the time to become experts in a particular field of science. At times, the subject is far too confusing. Then, I have to make a choice, spend decades acquiring knowledge, or, put my faith in scientific consensus, know that in past history, the consensus has been wrong.  There are consensus among hillbillies also.  Yes, question authority, even when they all agree. But when they have spent their lives trying to prove each other wrong and become famous when they do. I lean towards consensus on confusing topics (while still doing my research). Imagine if a scientist disproved evolution.....how famous he would be.

The fallacy you're looking for: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Also, it's argument from "inappropriate" authority. Pointing out that an "appropriate" authority agrees with you is not fallacious reasoning. Think about how scientific papers will site other scientific papers. That being said, as you alluded to at the end of your video, I doubt many people mean to say X is true "because" many scientist's believe it to be true. Instead, I believe, they are informally/implicitly asserting that because many scientist's believe X to be true, there is likely very good evidence for X. There is one main thing I think you overlooked here: most people are not logicians. They won't talk like logicians. They may not always state exactly what they mean. Try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and first assume they have a coherent argument in their head. Read between the lines (as it is). Don't be overly literal. Obviously, we don't want to construct strawmen by accident. Simply ask then to clarify first. Use context clues to determine what they're argument might really be (i.e. how could it be stated more clearly.) All in all, good video though. I do think it's better to just state the actual evidence then to say "well all these other dudes agree with me, and not you." It just doesn't really lead to a good conversion anyway. If we talk about facts and data, we can have a discussion on the interpretation and inferences of that data. If we just say "look at what all these people think to be true" the best the opposition can do is say "okay", and go argue with the scientists instead.