I cite the 98.5% of research scientists who are very concerned that the evidence that the theory is correct is nearly overwhelming.
Rather than get distracted with a discussion of global warming, I'll ignore that issue and just say that you don't have anything that resembles "98.5% of research scientists" backing this study as evidence that we should have nationalized health care. And even if you did neither their opinion nor that of the CEO's would be definitive. Not only are arguments from authority week with the best of authorities, but for a complex, cross area (political, economic, statistical, logical, medical, etc.) issue like that there are no reasonable authorities to use for an argument from authority.
And the basic logic of the study is false. As I pointed out. They are counting factors that are part of the reason for our lower life expectancy, as factors that add on to the negative points they give us for lower life expectancies. That's just crazy as a point of basic reasoning, and if 97% of the people, if 99% of CEOs, or 98.5% of research scientists supported it (none of which is true), they would still be obviously wrong on that point. (Which doesn't necessarily make the study wrong on the larger issue, but its shows that one of its specific arguments is worthless.)
It just depends on who you think is credible.
No it doesn't. Something isn't true, or even overwhelmingly likely to be true, just because some credible source says it is. Arguments from authority are one of the weakest types of arguments not one of the strongest. There better for highly limited and specific claims of fact. Not that they are 100% reliable even then, but in the absence of anything better you go with the credible authority, but for larger issues arguments from authority are very weak, and for complex political and economic issues there simply is no credible authority. |
