What, specifically, led you to this conclusion?
Is Consensus always Right ?
I am sure there are many examples throughout science history where what you might call the “consensus” have been proven to be wrong .
Thanks for that Sheldon
For what it is worth, nothing in science is ever proved (right or wrong); and that is a good thing!
2 Likes
That may well be the case but then again how do we know that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around ? Is that still up for scientific debate ?
Nope still wrong…
Ouch! One can almost hear those goal posts shifting.
Well I think it is important to accept when in error. Now why do you believe any deity or deities exist, if you have no objective evidence?
As with all scientific ideas it is not nor can it be immutable, but it nonetheless remains an irrefutable fact given the objective evidence.
I believe in a creator because of my own personal experience and it is the only philosophy/ belief or whatever you want to call it that makes any sense to me to explain the questions I have about who/why/ what I am .
1 Like
Do you believe the personal experiences of others who believe in different deities?
That is a textbook argument from personal incredulity fallacy. I mean do you accept this argument from others who believe in very different deities?
My apologies if I seem blunt, but I’ve heard these claims so many times, and I am not a young man anymore, so I haven’t time to waste… 
1 Like
That’s ok Sheldon, no offense taken .
Whatever somebody’s else’s metaphysical experiences maybe it’s not for me to question that experience.
Again, whatever somebody else’s experiences are it’s not for me to question their belief . I can only state what my beliefs are or aren’t .
You are confusing consensus with a rational reason to believe whether it is a consensus opinion. I have traveled to over 30 different countries in the world. It is consensus that crossing a street while looking both ways is the best practice. Everyone does it and it works. It is consensus. In addition, I have twice witnessed people crossing streets with earphones in their ears, and not paying attention, getting hit by cars. I have heard that this is a major reason people are hit by cars. There is independent research and validation of this claim. Injuries, “Deaths Rise for Pedestrians Wearing Headphones” Injuries, Deaths Rise for Pedestrians Wearing Headphones | Live Science
It’s consensus that paying attention to the traffic, and looking both ways, is one of the safest ways to cross a street. Why is it consensus? THAT IS THE IMPORTANT QUESTION. What is the evidence supporting the opinion. You don’t get to assert your NONSENSE without facts supporting your statements. You also don’t get to LOWER consensus based on facts and evidence, to blind consensus in the existence of spirits, gods, or rain dances affecting the weather.
3 Likes
He’s being 
with his nouns.
Fallacy ad popululenum
…(staring in disbelief with jaw on floor)… Uh… Wow… I’m not really sure how to act right now… (rubbing eyes… reading post again)…
@ Everybody
Am I hallucinating, or is that actually a genuine straight-up answer from Sid?.. Amazing… (look of awe on face)…
@Sid Hey, man, I would like to be the first (hopefully) to sincerely thank you for responding to a question with a direct answer. Also, I would like to encourage you to maintain that course so that we all might learn from each other. Carry on…
That’s the same reason I believe in Blue Universe Creating Bunnies. I agree fully. It is the only philosophy, belief, or whatever that makes any sense. Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Shamon, Scientologists, Mormons, all of Islam, Taoists, New Agers, and all the rest, all have it wrong. My personal experience is more real than your personal experience. If you were not so close minded you would see the truth.Wake from your sleep and see the truth. The foolish shall not be saved.
4 Likes
Politics works by consensus, many things work by consensus, science is not one of them . It is irrelevant in science . Science is not interested in how many people agree on something or for how long they have been studying it . The only thing that matters in science is how “good” the evidence is.
You can believe or not believe anything you want Cog, your subjective reality is your business
'The foolish shall not be saved.
Book of Wisdom, Chapter 7, Verse 3:
By Apostle Cognostic.
1 Like
Since people make subjective and anecdotal claims to have experienced different and sometimes mutually exclusive deities and beliefs, as well as all manner of other claims, the only rational position is to disbelieve all such subjective anecdotal claims. Unless someone can demonstrate some objective evidence or difference for their claim. Personal experience alone is notoriously unreliable, and of course one would have to inevitably accept contradictory claims. To simply ignore this may preserve a belief, but then one could belief almost anything by doing this.
Nope, an argumentum ad populum is a bare appeal to numbers, the fact words are defined in dictionaries doesn’t make them true, but is objective evidence that the definition reflect common usage and understanding. It’s not a bare appeal to numbers, nor am I making a truth claim about the definition beyond it being the commonly understood definition, as it is a fact these reflect common usage, that is both how and why dictionaries are compiled.
This is an argument from personal incredulity fallacy as well. calculus makes no sense to me, this doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Explanations abound in science that are so well evidenced they are irrefutable facts, but I would be unlikely to understand them
I already posted a link demonstrating this isn’t the case?
Evidence (objective) is of primary importance, but it is part of the methods of science, as is a scientific consensus, which is also important, since a scientific consensus reflect the reliability of the evidence. This doesn’t mean it can’t be challenged if the evidence demands it, nothing in science is immutable, even irrefutable facts remain tentative in the light of new evidence, even if the likelihood they will be substantially changed or reversed is so low as to effectively nil. Species evolution and natural selection for example are as likely to be falsified now as is the rotundity of the earth.
Whilst this is true, the rationale is deeply flawed if one cares that what they believe is true. I can believe the earth is flat, but to what end?
Science doesn’t work by a hand count on the validity of a hypothesis.