[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 119 KB, 450x268, 1290036841157.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2329556 No.2329556 [Reply] [Original]

This might sound like a troll but it's really not this is something I've been wondering for a while and I think some of you scientists could clear up.

It's considered a fallacy to appeal to authority, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

So why do scientific papers often quote authorities do prove their points?

>> No.2329563

>>2329556

It's generally the statements themselves that have the authority, in those cases.

>> No.2329565

>>So why do scientific papers often quote authorities do prove their points?

They don't. Ever! They provide citations to other works. Not at all the same thing.

>> No.2329567

>>2329563
Then why post the source at all if the statement is all that matters?

>> No.2329572

They cite authorities who in turn cite their sources or the underlying experimental evidence. Deferring to another person or location for elaboration is not the same as appeal to authority.

>> No.2329579

>>2329556

>So why do scientific papers often quote authorities do prove their points?

They do it because you're a retard. The argument from authority is weak when its the only argument in favour of a statement, but there are circumstances in which it can strengthen an argument that has some other evidence as well.

Don't assume that a form of argument is to be instantly rejected just because its on wikipedia's list of informal fallacies.

>> No.2329586

"Because Dr X says so" is not the same thing as "because this team got these results, and so did that team, and that other one too."

>> No.2329641

>>2329567
A paper makes a new point based on interpretation of evidence and reasoning described in the paper. In doing this, one will generally need data from other research besides the researched gathered pertinent to the present paper. Also formulas, theories, and other things may be used by the reasonings and calculations of the paper that come from other papers by other people. If you want to judge for yourself if you agree with the other data, formulae, or conclusions, you have the citation there and can look up the paper, and see if you agree with it. They are citations to other papers, not to other people. If you referenced a conclusion or fact to a person rather than a paper, it would be meaningless.

>> No.2329653
File: 28 KB, 363x310, 1277429447433.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2329653

>>2329567
So you can find the statment dumbshit.
It is just a way of orginization.

The statements could be fucking huge! And it is impractical to republish all needed statements every time. So, they just give you a link (citation).