Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Economic consensus.

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 12:24:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is a cool list.

Here is the list, together with the percentage of economists who agree:
A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. (93%)
Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare. (93%)
Flexible and floating exchange rates offer an effective international monetary arrangement. (90%)
Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy. (90%)
The United States should not restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries. (90%)
The United States should eliminate agricultural subsidies. (85%)
Local and state governments should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises. (85%)
If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85%)
The gap between Social Security funds and expenditures will become unsustainably large within the next fifty years if current policies remain unchanged. (85%)
Cash payments increase the welfare of recipients to a greater degree than do transfers-in-kind of equal cash value. (84%)
A large federal budget deficit has an adverse effect on the economy. (83%)
A minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers. (79%)
The government should restructure the welfare system along the lines of a "negative income tax." (79%)
Effluent taxes and marketable pollution permits represent a better approach to pollution control than imposition of pollution ceilings. (78%)
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!

It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 10:26:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!

It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,

I would like to note that while it is fallacious to use their opinions as an argument, that does not necessarily prove the opinions wrong.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 6:37:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 10:26:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!

It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,

I would like to note that while it is fallacious to use their opinions as an argument, that does not necessarily prove the opinions wrong.

I did not use their opinions as arguments. You're misinterpreting the point of the thread. Even consensus opinions can be overturned, although it isn't likely.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 8:14:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 6:37:50 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:26:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!

It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,

I would like to note that while it is fallacious to use their opinions as an argument, that does not necessarily prove the opinions wrong.

I did not use their opinions as arguments. You're misinterpreting the point of the thread. Even consensus opinions can be overturned, although it isn't likely.

Actually it is very likely. It was once a consensus that the earth was flat. It was once a consensus that the sun moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that the planets moved in a perfect circle around the sun. It was once a consensus that stars moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that bloodletting could prevent or cure diseases (even into the 19th century).

There is no point in mentioning "consensuses", because it is irrelevant to the validity of the claim. By the way; I would hardly call 97% a consensus, a consensus requires total agreement. This is the same misuse of the word that Global Warming Alarmists use to silence the opposition.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 8:23:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 8:14:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/4/2013 6:37:50 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:26:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!

It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,

I would like to note that while it is fallacious to use their opinions as an argument, that does not necessarily prove the opinions wrong.

I did not use their opinions as arguments. You're misinterpreting the point of the thread. Even consensus opinions can be overturned, although it isn't likely.

Actually it is very likely. It was once a consensus that the earth was flat. It was once a consensus that the sun moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that the planets moved in a perfect circle around the sun. It was once a consensus that stars moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that bloodletting could prevent or cure diseases (even into the 19th century).

No, it isn't "likely." It's called epistemology. I don't think that you would question the theory of gravity or the existence of the United States, now would you?

There is no point in mentioning "consensuses", because it is irrelevant to the validity of the claim. By the way; I would hardly call 97% a consensus, a consensus requires total agreement. This is the same misuse of the word that Global Warming Alarmists use to silence the opposition.

Find me one definition of the term "consensus" that agrees. I'm waiting.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 1:57:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 8:23:49 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:14:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/4/2013 6:37:50 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:26:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!

It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,

I would like to note that while it is fallacious to use their opinions as an argument, that does not necessarily prove the opinions wrong.

I did not use their opinions as arguments. You're misinterpreting the point of the thread. Even consensus opinions can be overturned, although it isn't likely.

Actually it is very likely. It was once a consensus that the earth was flat. It was once a consensus that the sun moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that the planets moved in a perfect circle around the sun. It was once a consensus that stars moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that bloodletting could prevent or cure diseases (even into the 19th century).

No, it isn't "likely." It's called epistemology.
Epistemology is philosophy not science.
I don't think that you would question the theory of gravity or the existence of the United States, now would you?

No I wouldn't, but that point is irrelevant. I believe in gravity because it makes sense, not because most scientists believe in gravity. I believe the US exists because I am a citizen of the US. There is a difference between believing something because of an consensus amongst authority figures, and believing something because it makes logical sense to you.

There is no point in mentioning "consensuses", because it is irrelevant to the validity of the claim. By the way; I would hardly call 97% a consensus, a consensus requires total agreement. This is the same misuse of the word that Global Warming Alarmists use to silence the opposition.

Find me one definition of the term "consensus" that agrees. I'm waiting.

(n) consensus (agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole) "the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions"; "those rights and obligations are based on an unstated consensus"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

"consensus
Syllabification: (con"sen"sus)
noun
[usually in singular]
general agreement: a consensus of opinion among judges [as modifier]:a consensus view
Origin:
mid 17th century: from Latin, 'agreement', from consens- 'agreed', from the verb consentire"
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 1:26:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM, DanT wrote:
It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,

It's an argument from authority in the form of a statistical syllogism. In this case the higher the percentage of agreement among experts in the field of economics, the stronger the argument.

In critical reasoning proper arguments from authority are strong arguments. Arguments from authority can be strong or weak depending on: (1) Are the people being asked experts in the field being discussed? (2) Is there a consensus?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 1:49:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 1:57:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:23:49 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:14:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/4/2013 6:37:50 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:26:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!

It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,

I would like to note that while it is fallacious to use their opinions as an argument, that does not necessarily prove the opinions wrong.

I did not use their opinions as arguments. You're misinterpreting the point of the thread. Even consensus opinions can be overturned, although it isn't likely.

Actually it is very likely. It was once a consensus that the earth was flat. It was once a consensus that the sun moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that the planets moved in a perfect circle around the sun. It was once a consensus that stars moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that bloodletting could prevent or cure diseases (even into the 19th century).

No, it isn't "likely." It's called epistemology.
Epistemology is philosophy not science.

It's philosophy of science, you twat.

I don't think that you would question the theory of gravity or the existence of the United States, now would you?

No I wouldn't, but that point is irrelevant. I believe in gravity because it makes sense, not because most scientists believe in gravity. I believe the US exists because I am a citizen of the US. There is a difference between believing something because of an consensus amongst authority figures, and believing something because it makes logical sense to you.

No, there's a consensus that the theory of gravity is correct. Unless you'd be willing to show me your dissertation on general relativity.

There is no point in mentioning "consensuses", because it is irrelevant to the validity of the claim. By the way; I would hardly call 97% a consensus, a consensus requires total agreement. This is the same misuse of the word that Global Warming Alarmists use to silence the opposition.

Find me one definition of the term "consensus" that agrees. I'm waiting.

(n) consensus (agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole) "the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions"; "those rights and obligations are based on an unstated consensus"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

"consensus
Syllabification: (con"sen"sus)
noun
[usually in singular]
general agreement: a consensus of opinion among judges [as modifier]:a consensus view
Origin:
mid 17th century: from Latin, 'agreement', from consens- 'agreed', from the verb consentire"
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

None of those imply that all parties must agree unanimously. Every generally accepted scientific theory is referred to as a "consensus."

/end
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 8:45:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/5/2013 1:49:17 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/4/2013 1:57:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:23:49 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:14:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/4/2013 6:37:50 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:26:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!

It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,

I would like to note that while it is fallacious to use their opinions as an argument, that does not necessarily prove the opinions wrong.

I did not use their opinions as arguments. You're misinterpreting the point of the thread. Even consensus opinions can be overturned, although it isn't likely.

Actually it is very likely. It was once a consensus that the earth was flat. It was once a consensus that the sun moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that the planets moved in a perfect circle around the sun. It was once a consensus that stars moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that bloodletting could prevent or cure diseases (even into the 19th century).

No, it isn't "likely." It's called epistemology.
Epistemology is philosophy not science.

It's philosophy of science, you twat.

Doesn't make it science. The philosophy forum is that way ->
I don't think that you would question the theory of gravity or the existence of the United States, now would you?

No I wouldn't, but that point is irrelevant. I believe in gravity because it makes sense, not because most scientists believe in gravity. I believe the US exists because I am a citizen of the US. There is a difference between believing something because of an consensus amongst authority figures, and believing something because it makes logical sense to you.

No, there's a consensus that the theory of gravity is correct.
A.) It does not mean the consensus is right. In 100 years we may find out that the effects we contribute to gravity is actually caused by something else.
B.) I didn't say there was no consensus on gravity, I said my opinion was not derived from the "consensus".
Unless you'd be willing to show me your dissertation on general relativity.

I don't need to write a dissertation to have an opinion.
There is no point in mentioning "consensuses", because it is irrelevant to the validity of the claim. By the way; I would hardly call 97% a consensus, a consensus requires total agreement. This is the same misuse of the word that Global Warming Alarmists use to silence the opposition.

Find me one definition of the term "consensus" that agrees. I'm waiting.

(n) consensus (agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole) "the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions"; "those rights and obligations are based on an unstated consensus"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

"consensus
Syllabification: (con"sen"sus)
noun
[usually in singular]
general agreement: a consensus of opinion among judges [as modifier]:a consensus view
Origin:
mid 17th century: from Latin, 'agreement', from consens- 'agreed', from the verb consentire"
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

None of those imply that all parties must agree unanimously. Every generally accepted scientific theory is referred to as a "consensus."

In science there is no such thing as a consensus. A "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. A consensus implies a lack of disagreement; it implies a solidarity of opinion. Real scientists do not form consensuses, they question everything. A true scientist does not believe something just because it is a popular opinion, or because they were told it was true; a true scientists believes something because they believe it has merit.

Let's say there are 20,000 scientists with an economics degree.

If 90% of economists agree with X, than 2,000 economists disagree with X. As the population of economists increase the number of economists who disagree also increases. To say there is a consensus would be to disregard the views of the 2,000 economists who disagree. For all you know the 2,000 economists who disagree could be the top tier of economists, and you just dismissed them. No-one has ever won a Nobel prize by accepting the conventional view.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 1:37:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/5/2013 8:45:52 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/5/2013 1:49:17 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/4/2013 1:57:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:23:49 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:14:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/4/2013 6:37:50 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:26:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!

It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,

I would like to note that while it is fallacious to use their opinions as an argument, that does not necessarily prove the opinions wrong.

I did not use their opinions as arguments. You're misinterpreting the point of the thread. Even consensus opinions can be overturned, although it isn't likely.

Actually it is very likely. It was once a consensus that the earth was flat. It was once a consensus that the sun moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that the planets moved in a perfect circle around the sun. It was once a consensus that stars moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that bloodletting could prevent or cure diseases (even into the 19th century).

No, it isn't "likely." It's called epistemology.
Epistemology is philosophy not science.

It's philosophy of science, you twat.

Doesn't make it science. The philosophy forum is that way ->

You're engaging me in a discussion about epistemology right now.

I don't think that you would question the theory of gravity or the existence of the United States, now would you?

No I wouldn't, but that point is irrelevant. I believe in gravity because it makes sense, not because most scientists believe in gravity. I believe the US exists because I am a citizen of the US. There is a difference between believing something because of an consensus amongst authority figures, and believing something because it makes logical sense to you.

No, there's a consensus that the theory of gravity is correct.
A.) It does not mean the consensus is right. In 100 years we may find out that the effects we contribute to gravity is actually caused by something else.
B.) I didn't say there was no consensus on gravity, I said my opinion was not derived from the "consensus".
Unless you'd be willing to show me your dissertation on general relativity.

I don't need to write a dissertation to have an opinion.

Why do you have an opinion, then? Why don't you accept Aristotle's explanation?

There is no point in mentioning "consensuses", because it is irrelevant to the validity of the claim. By the way; I would hardly call 97% a consensus, a consensus requires total agreement. This is the same misuse of the word that Global Warming Alarmists use to silence the opposition.

Find me one definition of the term "consensus" that agrees. I'm waiting.

(n) consensus (agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole) "the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions"; "those rights and obligations are based on an unstated consensus"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

"consensus
Syllabification: (con"sen"sus)
noun
[usually in singular]
general agreement: a consensus of opinion among judges [as modifier]:a consensus view
Origin:
mid 17th century: from Latin, 'agreement', from consens- 'agreed', from the verb consentire"
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

None of those imply that all parties must agree unanimously. Every generally accepted scientific theory is referred to as a "consensus."

In science there is no such thing as a consensus. A "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. A consensus implies a lack of disagreement; it implies a solidarity of opinion. Real scientists do not form consensuses, they question everything. A true scientist does not believe something just because it is a popular opinion, or because they were told it was true; a true scientists believes something because they believe it has merit.

Exactly. If there were a consensus that the color green kills on sight, and I viewed the color green and didn't die, then obviously the consensus would be undermined. But the odds of such a consensus forming around such an obviously false hypothesis is so low as to be irrelevant.

Let's say there are 20,000 scientists with an economics degree.

If 90% of economists agree with X, than 2,000 economists disagree with X. As the population of economists increase the number of economists who disagree also increases. To say there is a consensus would be to disregard the views of the 2,000 economists who disagree. For all you know the 2,000 economists who disagree could be the top tier of economists, and you just dismissed them. No-one has ever won a Nobel prize by accepting the conventional view.

Is this even worth a response, let alone a full rebuttal and explanation of how scientific consensus actually works? No, assuming that the "conventional view" is invariably overturned is not how science and epistemology work.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 10:06:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

I would really like to understand the polls that were used to assess economists positions on these items. There may be context that was not included in the poll. Let me give an example. The question on eliminating farming subsidies.

When one positions farming subsidies as a national security initiative, it might be very something that people support. The argument is as follows:

- If the US does not subsidize farming in the homeland, food production in the US will decline in favor for lower cost production around the world. This is great for growth, but set the US to be too dependent upon foreign sources of food items. Should those supply channels be disrupted the US would not have enough production capability to ensure enough food for their citizens. It is a future starvation risk, especially in cases of war.

Now go ask whether people support farming subsidies and see how well they align.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 10:39:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 1:37:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/5/2013 8:45:52 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/5/2013 1:49:17 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/4/2013 1:57:38 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:23:49 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:14:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/4/2013 6:37:50 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:26:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!

It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,

I would like to note that while it is fallacious to use their opinions as an argument, that does not necessarily prove the opinions wrong.

I did not use their opinions as arguments. You're misinterpreting the point of the thread. Even consensus opinions can be overturned, although it isn't likely.

Actually it is very likely. It was once a consensus that the earth was flat. It was once a consensus that the sun moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that the planets moved in a perfect circle around the sun. It was once a consensus that stars moved around the earth. It was once a consensus that bloodletting could prevent or cure diseases (even into the 19th century).

No, it isn't "likely." It's called epistemology.
Epistemology is philosophy not science.

It's philosophy of science, you twat.

Doesn't make it science. The philosophy forum is that way ->

You're engaging me in a discussion about epistemology right now.

I didn't bring up epistemology, you brought up epistemology. Epistemology has no relevance to the discussion. Your rebuttal to my claim that there is a high probability of a scientific "consensus" being proven wrong was that "It's called epistemology", which doesn't even address the claim.

I don't think that you would question the theory of gravity or the existence of the United States, now would you?

No I wouldn't, but that point is irrelevant. I believe in gravity because it makes sense, not because most scientists believe in gravity. I believe the US exists because I am a citizen of the US. There is a difference between believing something because of an consensus amongst authority figures, and believing something because it makes logical sense to you.

No, there's a consensus that the theory of gravity is correct.
A.) It does not mean the consensus is right. In 100 years we may find out that the effects we contribute to gravity is actually caused by something else.
B.) I didn't say there was no consensus on gravity, I said my opinion was not derived from the "consensus".
Unless you'd be willing to show me your dissertation on general relativity.

I don't need to write a dissertation to have an opinion.

Why do you have an opinion, then?
Because of my own logic and understanding of the subject. If someone else comes along with an alternative explanation, and I find that explanation more compelling (regardless of its popularity), than I will accept that new explanation. I won't accept something just because an authority figure tells me I should; I have a brain and I intend to use it.
Why don't you accept Aristotle's explanation?

Occam's razor

Find me one definition of the term "consensus" that agrees. I'm waiting.

(n) consensus (agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole) "the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions"; "those rights and obligations are based on an unstated consensus"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

"consensus
Syllabification: (con"sen"sus)
noun
[usually in singular]
general agreement: a consensus of opinion among judges [as modifier]:a consensus view
Origin:
mid 17th century: from Latin, 'agreement', from consens- 'agreed', from the verb consentire"
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

None of those imply that all parties must agree unanimously. Every generally accepted scientific theory is referred to as a "consensus."

In science there is no such thing as a consensus. A "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. A consensus implies a lack of disagreement; it implies a solidarity of opinion. Real scientists do not form consensuses, they question everything. A true scientist does not believe something just because it is a popular opinion, or because they were told it was true; a true scientists believes something because they believe it has merit.

Exactly. If there were a consensus that the color green kills on sight, and I viewed the color green and didn't die, then obviously the consensus would be undermined.
So now you agree with me that an opinion should not be formed based on the supposed "consensus" of others?
But the odds of such a consensus forming around such an obviously false hypothesis is so low as to be irrelevant.

I don't think irrelevant is the word you are looking for.

The odds of the consensus forming has nothing to do with the merit of the consensus. Just because the odds of most specialists being wrong in their specialized field is slim, does not mean a consensus among those specialists is right. Science is always evolving due to new information. Because science is always evolving, scientific consensuses are almost always wrong, as new information changes what we once thought we knew. For example; we were right that the earth revolved around the sun, but we were wrong about it revolving in a perfect circle. The new information made the consensus wrong, despite the merits of the theory. Without the widely accepted theories that turned out to be wrong we would not have many of the theories widely accepted today.

Let's say there are 20,000 scientists with an economics degree.

If 90% of economists agree with X, than 2,000 economists disagree with X. As the population of economists increase the number of economists who disagree also increases. To say there is a consensus would be to disregard the views of the 2,000 economists who disagree. For all you know the 2,000 economists who disagree could be the top tier of economists, and you just dismissed them. No-one has ever won a Nobel prize by accepting the conventional view.

Is this even worth a response, let alone a full rebuttal and explanation of how scientific consensus actually works? No, assuming that the "conventional view" is invariably overturned is not how science and epistemology work.

There is never a consensus in science. That is not how science works. Just because 18,000 scientists believe something and 2,000 scientists don't, does not mean the 18,000 scientists are right. The individual must form their own opinion; otherwise it is not a scientific opinion. Assuming the 18,000 scientist know what they are talking about is no different than assuming a priest knows what he is talking about. Faith and reason are two different things; a scientific opinion is based on logic and reason, while a religious opinion is based on faith.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 1:04:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 10:39:16 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/9/2013 1:37:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Why don't you accept Aristotle's explanation?

Occam's razor

My my my! We're on to something. The rest of the post is just rehashed nonsense and will not be responded to.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 10:39:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 10:26:43 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 10:25:05 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2013 12:17:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/1/2013 12:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2013 10:51:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
They exist: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...

Discuss.

Argumentum ad populum

It's an argument from authority, you jack wagon!

It's both an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority,

I would like to note that while it is fallacious to use their opinions as an argument, that does not necessarily prove the opinions wrong.

It's just interesting to see whether or not economists agree on anything.