Muh Academic Consensus

Trust the experts! Believe the science! It's the scientific consensus! My professor told me so, therefore it is true! It's well established knowledge!
Appeal to Authority is valid if the Authority agrees with me!

How dare you disagree with muh academic consensus!
-Fumo

If you want to leave me a tip / support my content:
Follow me on Twitter for channel updates and general bantz:

Music: Sol Aestas - Glitch Hop
License: CC 4.0 Attribution

[MentisWave]

Remember that one of the best things you can do for a video you feel is underrated is to share it on places like twitter, which I just semi recently started using:

[danielsurvivor]

Average Scientific Worshipper fan
Vs
Average Scientific Method Enjoyer

[daskampffredchen]

Reminds me of Einstein receiving a letter from over 100 scientists saying that they wont accept his Theory of Relativity and he responded that one person disproving it would have been enough

[GabrielZylstra]

I think its hard to refute "muh academic consensus" as a non-expert. No matter how much data you bring up, your opponent can always say it it more likely that you as a layman are misinterpreting the evidence than that all the experts are.

[ferthebest]

Nowadays people cite all kinds of studies like crazy...but they don't realize that citing a study is not enough.Before you use a study to validate your arguments, you need to make sure the methodology was correct, the sample size was adecuate and of course who pays for that study!

[IgnisW]

My American Literature Professor once said “Appeal to authority is not a fallacy, appeal to a false authority is” Absolute midwit.

[ferthebest]

I mean in the 60s the scientific consensus was that smoking was harmless and actually a lot of the studies of that time that were validating this were fund by the same cigarrette companies and scientists or doctors that dared to question that dogma were attacked or censored...So yeah of course this can happen again

[danielsurvivor]

Trust the Fumos.











*TRUST THE FUMONTIFIC CONSENSUS!*

[landonlawson]

The majority of medical professionals used to subscribe to the humors theory of medicine for hundreds of years. They also fought against germ theory when it was first proposed. Just because there's a census doesn't make it true.

[Mr.fed_agent]

I always say "95% of all researchers will agree with whoever is funding them." it pisses people off

[ApolloTheDerg]

Going all the way back to cornbeef 19, I found it so funny that people who literally put “science” stickers on their cars and followed the crowd unquestioningly would absolutely lose their shit when I questioned things. Me being a midwit with enough wit to know these blind followers of the faith are following an incomplete faith.

I’m not very smart, nor well spoken, but it makes me wonder about the value of “critical thinking” and if I even do it, or if others literally just aren’t.

Clown world is an interesting world to say the least.

[ananon]

another thing to mention is that experts are not infallible, they can get stuff wrong, even if on accident.
and honestly, it would probably work better if they opened with that and then brought out the evidence, rather than use it cause they brought none.

[IHateAlmondMilk]

The last two years of “Scientific consensus” and “It’s been scientifically proven” has been awful

[marcarmarcar]

5:15 yeah remember, if you’re allowed to question God, you can definitely question some prick in a lab coat

[JodyBruchon]

It's also a bandwagon fallacy when it moves from authority to authoritative consensus.

[based_dragon_]

It’s hilarious. Just over 100 years ago the academic consensus from almost all well connected scientists was the existence of aether. Scientists who questioned this were shunned, even though aether never actually existed.

Why do people think the same thing can’t happen today?

[hamadraith]

Appeal to authority is essentially source: "Trust me, bro." But instead of me, it's someone else who is an "expert".

[Cecilia-kyuw]

academic consensus should not be cited when it is being questioned, you should instead try to explain their position. otherwise you can cite them as an appeal to authority, purely because no one has the time nor will to go through every single damned paper

[nunterz]

Beautifully put. Yea I had a lot of trouble with "soyentific consensus" (love that term) thrown at me. It was demoralizing when I found out that even scientists can't comprehend that the "scientific consensus" itself is an empty phrase, and that for it to be meaningful you need to be precise what exactly that "scientific consensus" is, if that really is the "scientific consensus", what the quality of that "consensus" is etc.

I always say that the ultimate test of a scientific theory is the consistent long term practice built on it: in other words: reality itself. You can tell me "peer review", the "scientific method", etc., yeah, sure, let's see in 20 years.

My other favorite quote is "Science didn't lie to you, it just has learned more". Yea, that is true. But maybe if "science learned more" in two months it means your initial research from two months ago was crap in the first place.

And last: the argument always comes up in political discourse, in which expert opinion, may be as factual as it possibly can be is of little meaning. Policy is about balancing among a million factors that affect the lives of each of us, and each expert opinion is just one factor of those and no experts were ever trained to scientifically prioritze and balance out all those factors for everyone. So experts can be right about something in their field, that still doesn't mean they can suggest a policy with any more authority than any of us.

[skylinefever]

I have no pilots license, but if I see a helicopter stuck in a tree, I will say someone screwed up.

"Trust The Experts TM" arguments would not tolerating non licensed pilots saying that.