How can a Non-Scientist Detect Scientific Quackery?
Jul 29, 2022 21:34:33 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Jul 29, 2022 21:34:33 GMT -5
How can a Non-Scientist Detect Scientific Quackery?
There is a very popular notion among those who place their faith in scientists, that a non- scientist can never prove a scientist wrong. That their reasoning is unassailable unless the intricacies of their professions are profoundly understood. Unfortunately for such gullible individuals, that is not the case. The sobering truth is that the reasoning of scientists can be flawed and can be easily detected as flawed by any non-scientist who is familiar with the principles of cogent reasoning. If a scientist bin his effort to lend support to some quack idea violate such a principle then he can be exposed by any non scientist who detects the serious flaw in reasoning. Let me provide you with examples.
For example, the fallacy of inconsistency of policy is one example, If a scientist or a group of scientists are following a certain modus operandi as their guideline to discovering facts, and suddenly abandon or routinely abandon that policy. then something is obviously afoot.
Now, those inconsistencies of policy fallacy is a favorite one among atheist scientists. You see, they will readily see intelligence design in everything the clearly displays a planning mind, such as codes, structural designs,, even in a few strait angles on some moon. However when these identical things are in glaring evidence in the natural world such as the A code, the obvious premeditation in its design which entails self repair and and intended translator, then they suddenly switch off their criteria and refuse to reach their previous conclusions.
Another fallacy, and a very serious one, is expounding an idea as irrefutable fact without having nor providing a shred of evidence to support it. For example, the very popular idea of abiogenesis has never been observed to be happening in nature, nor can it be forced to occur in a laboratory.
Yet atheist scientists, in their frenetic fanatical effort to avoid admitting the obvious, assume that it occurred on earth and must certainly be happening all over the universe wherever water exists. That is the fallacy of wishful thinking par excellence. No need to be a scientist to detect that kind of blatant BS.
Then there is the fallacy of ad populum, or an appeal to the popularity, or majority. The belief that because the majority if scientists propose something to be true, then it must definitely be true, and the evidence of the minority must be invariably considered as invalid is culturally infused. So in this case, it is numerical preponderance that is being used as a touchstone to determine authenticity and, once again, there is absolutely no need to be a scientist to easily see that this manner of thinking is seriously flawed ad is tantamount to quackery. Simply a basic knowledge of cogent reasoning is suffice.
Sadly, the scientists using this flawed thinking KNOW full well that it is flagrantly flawed, but are counting on the ignorance of the masses, and their culturally ingrained blind faith in scientists' honesty to accept it as fact.
Another fallacy, and a very serious one, is expounding an idea as irrefutable fact without having nor providing a shred of evidence to support it. For example, the very popular idea of abiogenesis has never been observed to be happening in nature, nor can it be forced to occur in a laboratory.
Yet atheist scientists, in their frenetic fanatical effort to avoid admitting the obvious, assume that it occurred on earth and must certainly be happening all over the universe wherever water exists. That is the fallacy of wishful thinking par excellence. No need to be a scientist to detect that kind of blatant BS.
Then there is the fallacy of ad populum, or an appeal to the popularity, or majority. The belief that because the majority if scientists propose something to be true, then it must definitely be true, and the evidence of the minority must be invariably considered as invalid is culturally infused. So in this case, it is numerical preponderance that is being used as a touchstone to determine authenticity and, once again, there is absolutely no need to be a scientist to easily see that this manner of thinking is seriously flawed ad is tantamount to quackery. Simply a basic knowledge of cogent reasoning is suffice.
Sadly, the scientists using this flawed thinking KNOW full well that it is flagrantly flawed, but are counting on the ignorance of the masses, and their culturally ingrained blind faith in scientists' honesty to accept it as fact.