Talk:Argument from authority/Archive 7

Example Section (quotes from sources and links to discussion about sources)
From this source we have the following quote:
 * In retrospect, the reasons for the persistent miscounting are clear enough. Normally, the chromosomes lie in a region of the cell nucleus that takes on a deep color upon staining. In the quiescent cell, the individual chromosomes cannot be visually differentiated from the region. They can only be seen - and counted - in the process of cell division, when they emerge as separate, colored - hence the name - rodlike entities.

From this source we have the quote:
 * Tjio remarks that the early observations of sectioned testis material were difficult to interpret and that the observations from smear preparations in the early 1950s were of poor quality and wishful interpretations of the configurations. I believe, however, that the overriding factor in challenging ‘48’ was the quality of his preparations. They were simply the best human metaphase spreads that had been made. There was no question about the count!

Finally, in this source, we find the following quote:
 * Painter himself took the evidence of his "best cell" and reported the number as forty-eight, confirming an error that would be perpetuated in dozens of textbooks (including one of my own) until a new set of techniques for counting chromosomes was introduced in the mid-1950s. In 1956, using new stains (such as acetocarmine and Feulgen's stain specific for DNA) and soft somatic tissues (especially embryonic tissues) that could be smeared; using cokhicine to halt dividing cells in metaphase and hence greatly increase the number of such cells observable; and using hypotonic salt solutions to spread the chromosomes of dividing cells apart to eliminate their clumping into uncountable masses, J. H. Tjio and A. Levan made a definitive determination that the human diploid chromosome number is forty-six, i.e., twenty-three pairs of homologous chromosomes in human diploid cells.
 * Painter experienced deep chagrin over this error in what had long been regarded as a primary discovery for which he was known and universally cited. Yet —given the source of his material and the procedures available to him in the early 1920s— he may not have been entirely wrong.

Emphasis added in all cases.

Finally, the sole source which supports the interpretation of a fallacious appeal to authority being the primary cause of the error cites a source which cannot be verified. We cannot consider a source reliable if it cites an unreliable source to support its claims. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  14:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already responded to all of this. The example already says it was based on poor data and conflicting observations. The "I believe, however, that the overriding factor in challenging ‘48’ was the quality of his preparations. They were simply the best human metaphase spreads that had been made" bit isn't talking about Painter at all, but Tijo, as explained above. The book cites the article directly, not the archive of it that you say is unreliable so that criticism is irrelevant. And not only that but, like we looked at above, there's no basis for saying the archived version is unreliable.
 * You're simply repeating things that've already been answered multiple times. FL or Atlanta (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The "I believe, however, that the overriding factor in challenging ‘48’ was the quality of his preparations. They were simply the best human metaphase spreads that had been made" bit isn't talking about Painter at all, but Tijo, as explained above. Which does absolutely nothing to support your assertion. It denigrates the technology and techniques of Painter's peers, and praises the technology and techniques of Tjio and Levan. That is a clear and unambiguous attribution of the error to failings in technology, not to any perceived authority.
 * And not only that but, like we looked at above, there's no basis for saying the archived version is unreliable. Except for the fact that the supposed publisher has records of the issue that article supposedly appeared in, but doesn't have any record of that article actually appearing in it? In other words, the publisher says "we never published such an article" yet you don't think that says anything about the reliability of the article?
 * You're simply repeating things that've already been answered multiple times Pot, kettle. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

“That is a clear and unambiguous attribution of the error to failings in technology, not to any perceived authority.”

Yes, the faulty techniques are why Painter made his error. The example says this.

His perceived authority is what lead to his error being widely accepted.

“Except for the fact that the supposed publisher has records of the issue that article supposedly appeared in, but doesn't have any record of that article actually appearing in it”

That’s because you were searching the Daily Telegraph archives, while the article was in the Sunday Telegraph.

And remember, that isn't the source that's being cited anymore. The example cites the book. So we have a reliable source for these facts that says that that article contains the information. Arguing it is wrong because a search you did on a website returned no results would be the epitome of a violation of WP:OR. FL or Atlanta (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * His perceived authority is what lead to his error being widely accepted. No, the inability of any other scientist to prove him wrong is what is cited by all of the academic sources.
 * That’s because you were searching the Daily Telegraph archives Which includes the Sunday Telegraph articles. Did you even bother to check?
 * And remember, that isn't the source that's being cited anymore. Yes it is. Your Orell source 'directly cites this article to support it's statement. What you're doing is no better than citing a poorly sourced claim in a wikipedia article.
 * Arguing it is wrong because a search you did on a website returned no results would be the epitome of a violation of WP:OR. First off, you apparently have no idea what OR is. Second, I didn't say that made the article wrong. I explicitly stated several times that I think the article is legit. I said that made it unverifiable, and that as much as I wanted to use it, we couldn't. Once again, you have to put words in my mouth to make your case. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

“the inability of any other scientist to prove him wrong is what is cited by all of the academic sources”

What it took to prove him wrong was the totally undeniable evidence that came with the improved techniques. It was hard to find the answer with the earlier techniques, but because Painter declared “the number is 48”, everyone else echoed his declaration based on his authority. The position should have been “various counts exist, see all these authors:” but instead it was “the count is 48, see Painter”.

Evidence that would have proven him wrong was assumed to be incorrect based on the consensus being 48. It talks here for example about how: "'Another telling incident with regards to bias comes from Hultén, who was an undergraduate student in the same department as Tjio and Levan when they were carrying out their classic work. She remembers being told by the director of the Institute, Arne Müntzing, that: 'earlier that year Doctors Eva and Yngve Melander working on normal human fetal cells had problems with their chromosome preparation as they could only find cells with incomplete chromosome plates, the maximum number being 46.'...Clearly, he was not prepared for the possibility that 48 was not the correct human chromosome count.'"

And it says that the reason Tijo was the one who established the correct count was likely in part because "Tijo's unusual background and life experiences might have made him more likely than others to question authority regarding '48'".

“Which includes the Sunday Telegraph articles”

Sometimes, but far from always. I haven’t even seen any indication that the website digitizes all of the Daily Telegraph articles, and certainly no indication that it does so with every article from the turn of the millennium. According to the page for The Daily Telegraph, “Articles published in either may be published on the Telegraph Media Group's www.telegraph.co.uk website”.

They do not publish everything there.

“Your Orell source 'directly cites this article to support it's statement.”

If the Orrell source is reliable, then its claim that this information is found in that source is reliable.

“I said that made it unverifiable”

So you’re using this research that you yourself conducted as an argument to overturn a reliable source that tells us that article reports these things. That is original research by definition. FL or Atlanta (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * because Painter declared “the number is 48”, everyone else echoed his declaration based on his authority. Yet none of the sources say that... In fact, the source that is about the actual count states that he was not the first to come up with that number. If you look above, you can see where I quoted a source pointing out that he was "...confirming the error..." You don't get to cherry pick quotes and combine their implications in a way that confirms what you already believe. That's synthesis, just like your bit about confirmation bias.
 * Sometimes, but far from always. Which, by definition makes it unverifiable.
 * If the Orrell source is reliable, then its claim that this information is found in that source is reliable. That's a mighty big if. Also, that's a fallacy (ever heard of a redaction?).
 * You’re using this research that you yourself conducted as an argument to overturn a reliable source that tells us that article reports these things. First off, I'm not arguing with the source. I've said before, and I say again, I'm sure some people cited Painter's authority. What I did was try to verify the source, and found that it could not be done. It's not OR to attempt to verify a source. It's OR to do things like insert unsupported claims into articles and cite them to a number of sources that only support it if one synthesizes cherry picked quotes from them together. You really need to read the WP policy pages, you clearly don't understand the difference between content and source verification. By your logic, all of the discussion at WP:RSN is original research. That's ridiculous. It's also ironic that you're defending sourcing, when you've stated many times in no uncertain terms your belief that OR is the only valid form of reasoning. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

“Yet none of the sources say that”

I’ve already addressed this. Each of them says it.

'“the source that is about the actual count states that he was not the first to come up with that number. If you look above, you can see where I quoted a source pointing out that he was '...confirming the error...'”'

Exactly, this is what I’m saying. There were a range of counts, some got 48. Then because the great Theophilus Painter agreed with them 48 became the established number – he “confirmed the error”, he was “universally cited” for it, "no one appeared to question Painter's 48 count", etc.

“Which, by definition makes it unverifiable.”

That’s absurd, something doesn’t need to be in The Daily Telegraph archives to be verifiable. It is verified by Orrell’s book. FL or Atlanta (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Each of them says it. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT would make a good afternoon's read for you.
 * Exactly, this is what I’m saying. That interpretation requires synthesis.
 * That’s absurd, something doesn’t need to be in The Daily Telegraph archives to be verifiable. It is verified by Orrell’s book. Which came out after the geocities 'archive', which itself was cited by numerous creatonist websites. Orrell's citation helps with the source's reliability, but it doesn't establish it. Even if it did, that would make it 'the only source to state that this was an appeal to authority, while all the other sources talk about technical limitations.
 * Even if you were absolutely right about all of the sources, you still haven't addressed Mondegreen's objections, above. You haven't given a single reason why this article needs an example section, nor done a single thing to provide a balanced selection of examples. All you're doing is pushing your own POV on the article after having been smacked down several times in the past for it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding a response to your doubts about Orrell’s reliability, but ran into an edit conflict, so I’ll just put it at the beginning:

“That's a mighty big if.”

You can read Orrell's page if you doubt he is a reliable source. He received his doctorate from Oxford and is a researcher in systems biology.

“WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT would make a good afternoon's read for you.”

I’ve provided quotes from each source that directly state it was accepted based on Painter’s authority.

“Which came out after the geocities 'archive'”

Your personal reservations about it are not relevant. We have a reliable source that reports it, thus for the purposes of the encyclopedia it has been verified. Saying things like “what if he actually got it from here, and what if there its actually a forgery” is WP:OR, especially when there’s absolutely no indication that either of those things are true.

“Orrell's citation helps with the source's reliability”

Orrell’s book is the source, keep in mind. He’s what the example section cites.

“that would make it 'the only source to state that this was an appeal to authority, while all the other sources talk about technical limitations.”

I’ve already addressed this assertion.

“You haven't given a single reason why this article needs an example section”

Let’s first reach a consensus on whether this would be an example.

“nor done a single thing to provide a balanced selection of examples”

If you feel other examples would be helpful, then by all means add them! FL or Atlanta (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can read Orrell's page if you doubt he is a reliable source. He received his doctorate from Oxford and is a researcher in systems biology. Systems biology != philosophy or history of science. Not that it matters, I never questioned Orrell's qualifications.

I’ve provided quotes from each source that directly state it was accepted based on Painter’s authority. Bullshit. You provided quotes that say Painter counted 48 and people believed him. To take that to mean they assumed he was right because he was an expert is to not only engage in synthesis, but to completely misunderstand how scientific publication and peer-review works. Scientists believed him because they read his article, and couldn't fault his methodology.
 * Orrell’s book is the source, keep in mind. He’s what the example section cites.Orrell's book cites an unreliable source for it's claim, therefore it's not the source. It's you trying to wikilawyer out of the problems with the original article.
 * I’ve already addressed this assertion With synthesis and OR. Try addressing it with citations to other sources that explicitly agree with you (if you can find any).
 * Let’s first reach a consensus on whether this would be an example., and I all agree that it shouldn't be included. You disagree. There's already a consensus, you just refuse to abide by it. Besides, if you wanted to reach a consensus first, you wouldn't have been edit warring. Can you just cut the bullshit and be honest for a change? Wait, nevermind. I already know the answer to that...
 * If you feel other examples would be helpful, then by all means add them! I don't. Neither does anyone else editing this page. In fact, you're the only person who wants an example section. And the example you want? One that supports your own POV. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you what. If you can come up with a good reason why the rest of the article doesn't do a good enough job conveying the meaning and nature of the argument without this section (and without resorting to your insistence that this argument is always a fallacy), I'll drop the whole thing and let you put the example section in. I will not defend it from anyone else who reads the sources and says "hell no" (including Mondegreen and Original Position), but I won't remove anything from it except that bit you wrote about confirmation bias. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

'“You provided quotes that say Painter counted 48 and people believed him. To take that to mean they assumed he was right because he was an expert”'

Its stated here that it was accepted “in light of Painter’s many other contributions to cytology”.

“Scientists believed him because they read his article, and couldn't fault his methodology”

His data was poor and his count uncertain. This is discussed here, where it talks about how “When I examined the figures in Painter’s papers, which are camera lucida drawings of what one sees in the microscope, I could appreciate the difficulty in making an exact count. Tao-Chiuh Hsu, a prominent mammalian cytogeneticist and one of the discoverers of the hypotonic shock method for chromosome spreading, examined a slide from Painter’s collection and remarked that: “it’s amazing that he even came close.” And analyzing an image of the chromosomes he worked with, it concludes that despite using the best available methods “it is still difficult, if not impossible, to make an exact count”.

Despite this however, he was “positive about 48”. It states that his confident declaration might’ve been due to bias on his part: “He might have felt that if he was unable to determine the correct chromosome number he would not be able to publish the work”.

And as we saw above, people were getting data that showed the correct number was 46, but assuming it was an error because they were “not prepared for the possibility that 48 was not the correct human chromosome count”, and says that similarly another researcher was “under the pervasive influence of Painter’s count of 48 chromosomes.”

And it concludes by saying “Most writers on this interesting period of human genetics have ascribed the problem of the continuing incorrect chromosome count following Painter to ‘preconception’. The number was supposed to be 48 so subsequent investigators did everything possible to make their counts 48. The surprise is why there were apparently no criticisms of the drawings published by Painter.”

So what we find is a shocking lack of criticism of Painter. People assumed he was correct because of his authority in the field of cytology, and so no one even questioned his conclusions despite their dubious basis.

“Orrell's book cites an unreliable source for it's claim”

What’s unreliable about the source it cites? It cites a newspaper article by a science correspondent.

“therefore it's not the source”

Secondary and tertiary sources are used all the time on Wikipedia, and in fact are encouraged. Something isn’t not a source because it itself cites sources.

'“Original Position, Lord Mondegreen and I all agree that it shouldn't be included. You disagree.”'

Let’s keep focused. Mondegreen hasn’t said anything one way or the other about whether this is an example of appeals to authority, which is the issue we’re looking at.

Original Position stated that “We have a newspaper article by a science reporter claiming that scientists accepted this result because of an overreliance on Painter's authority, but we don't have a source from either a discussion of this fallacy or from an expert on chromosomes or science historian backing up Matthew's claim.”

Yet now we have a biologist who does exactly that. He also says “the article currently suggests that people then counted the correct number of chromosomes as 46, but continued to claim it was 48 based on Painter's authority. This is nowhere in the literature”, yet as we’ve just seen we have multiple reported examples of this.

Further, Perfect Orange Sphere agrees with me.

“In fact, you're the only person who wants an example section.”

Perfect Orange Sphere wrote the section so clearly he wants one, and Original Position said we should “work on finding a good, clear, non-contentious example of this fallacy”. FL or Atlanta (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * lol Did you seriously quote OP saying how contentious this example is (and that it should be replaced) to support an argument that we should include it? Seriously?
 * Also, for the second time:
 * I'll tell you what. If you can come up with a good reason why the rest of the article doesn't do a good enough job conveying the meaning and nature of the argument without this section (and without resorting to your insistence that this argument is always a fallacy), I'll drop the whole thing and let you put the example section in. I will not defend it from anyone else who reads the sources and says "hell no" (including Mondegreen and Original Position), but I won't remove anything from it except that bit you wrote about confirmation bias. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"Did you seriously quote OP saying how contentious this example is (and that it should be replaced) to support an argument that we should include it?"

That was about support for having an example section in general, not for whether this was an example or not.

If you can come up with a good reason why the rest of the article doesn't do a good enough job conveying the meaning and nature of the argument without this section

break 1
Its not a question of "good enough", but "can it be better?". Real-world, concrete examples put the abstract philosophical statements in the article into a concrete focus. Its a lot like having the History section: looking at how people have seen the argument over time helps understand the subject as a whole rather than just seeing a thin abstract slice. FL or Atlanta (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're just re-stating your assertion. Can you provide a reason why this article needs examples that doesn't rely on your claim that the argument is always fallacious? If so, spit it out. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just spoke about why real-world examples are helpful. They show how the abstract is put into practice. FL or Atlanta (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Only in the context of it being a fallacy. Can you show why it's useful without relying on the assertion that it's always a fallacy? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You'd simply find examples of it being used non-fallaciously. Perhaps a time someone appealed to authority that might look fallacious at first, but then turned out to have been the right move. FL or Atlanta (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that real-world examples help to illustrate forms of reasoning. The real world is messy, and it's often hard to see which forms of reasoning were actually deployed in a given case. This discussion provides a good example of this: we have the real-world example of the chromosome count, but very different opinions about whether this count is the result of bad technology, confirmation bias, appeals to authority, or what-have-you.


 * The application of abstract principles to concrete cases is much better illustrated by providing a hypothetical example where we can isolate exactly the factors that make an argument count as an appeal to authority. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to actually read the discussion man. There aren't different opinions about the cause. Everyone agrees bad methods caused the count, then it got accepted because of appeals to authority, then confirmation bias kept it afloat. The sources and I think even MjolnirPants agrees with that. Here's the real question for you: after reading what everyone's said, do you agree that the data was poor, and that appeals to Painter's authority were involved in the 48 count's acceptance? If so then they're examples of fallacious appeals to authority. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't often edit Wikipedia anymore, but back when I did there was a general norm (not to mention an explicit policy) against personally insulting other editors. I'll thank you to withhold future remarks along the lines of "Read the thread."
 * As for whether appeals to Painter's authority were fallacious, that question is quite beside the point of the discussion between me and FL or Atlanta, which was about whether it's a good idea to include real-world examples at all. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't an insult. You seemed to have skimmed the discussion if you think there's a real question about the cause when everyone's said they agree. You listed things that took place in sequence as if they were different options, so it appears that you need to read it more closely. No one faults you for not examining every word of this giant discussion, but if you're going to comment on it then that's what should be done. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You'd simply find examples of it being used non-fallaciously. Perhaps a time someone appealed to authority that might look fallacious at first, but then turned out to have been the right move. That still doesn't answer my question. You're trying to tell me I should answer the question, and if that's the case, then my answer is "it doesn't. Nix the section". So try again. Here, I'll rephrase it: How does this example helpfully illustrate the appeal to authority as an argument, instead of as a fallacy?

You need to actually read the discussion man. There aren't different opinions about the cause. You need to actually read the sources man. One of the sources never even implicates an appeal to authority, one of them implies it in passing and a third one mentions it, again in passing. Only one of the sources directly states it, and that is the most contentious source. All of the other sources either directly state or strongly imply that the reason scientists accepted the number was primarily due to their inability to find fault in Painter's study, thanks to the technology and techniques available to them. Only an extremely simplistic reading of the sources results in the impasse you two seem to view this as, with you thinking that I am rejecting any possibility that Painter's authority was ever appealed to, and you rejecting any possibility that this resulted from anything other than appeals to Painter's authority.

The sources and I think even MjolnirPants agrees with that. You can speak to what you think, but you're dead wrong about what the sources and I think. The discussion above (which you should read, irony noted) in the "Examples" section explains that this example is way too messy. It's not clearly just the result of appeals to authority, it doesn't indicate why some people would rely on Painter's authority, when the sources are represented fairly it becomes clear that appeals to authority played a relatively small role in the affair, and the whole thing implies that the argument is always a fallacy, which it is not. You shouldn't tell people to read a discussion you haven't bothered to read, yourself. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  13:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't answer my question.
 * Do I have any reason to believe you're not just going to keep saying this about every answer? I've given my reasons.
 * Most people who've participated in this discussion want an example section, so an example section we should have. FL or Atlanta (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I have any reason to believe you're not just going to keep saying this about every answer There's the fact that I'm demonstrably more willing to listen to opposing views than you. There's the fact that I offered to drop the issue if you could answer that question in the first place (which might actually speak to the first fact).
 * I've given my reasons. But your reasons rely on a false assumption that you've been smacked down for repeatedly; that the argument is always fallacious. Of course, you could always come up with a better example. Perhaps you could find sources to support a climate change example, a debate which is rife with both legitimate and illegitimate appeals to authority. It would be distinctly possible to find a case of one side appealing to a legitimate authority and being right, while the other side appealed to an illegitimate authority and was wrong.
 * Most people who've participated in this discussion want an example section Bullshit. I started out advocating for it and changed my mind. Original Position said we'd need to find much better examples before having this section, Mondegreen said clearly that he doesn't see the need. Only you and Pefect are advocating for it. 2/5 is not in any way a majority. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sources are the ones that “impl[y] it in passing”, which one is the one that “never even implicates an appeal to authority”? I can’t very well comment on a source if it isn’t said which source is being referred to. Dr. Orrell's book isn’t contentious at all to anyone else, on the subject of biology works by biologists are the image of a reliable source.


 * We can find ever more sources that talk about it being due to his authority. It talks here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eva_Jablonka2/publication/259437489_Disturbing_Dogmas_Biologists_and_the_History_of_Biology/links/0deec52b9edd78ecb2000000.pdf about how "“Initially not everyone agreed with his chromosome count, but, ‘…Painter’s authoritative chromosome studies in the 1920s were a very strong influence on all other cytologists in their counts of human chromosomes. Cytologists firmly expected to find 48 chromosomes and, in haploid cells, 24 chromosomes. Not surprisingly, in view of the trying technical circumstances, they found them. A close preconception-confirmation feedback relationship was established. Preconception led to confirmation; confirmation strengthened the underlying preconception; the strengthened preconception increased the likelihood of further confirmation which was, indeed, forthcoming.’'"


 * At http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2942682/pdf/eugenrev00326-0031.pdf is even a study from 1925 that reports the number being 48, and directly cites Painter for it: "'The best study we have of a chromosome count in man, is the work of Dr.Theophilus S. Painter…As far as the species is concerned, the chromosome number and appearance of white and black men are the same. There are forty-eight chromosomes in the somatic cells…'"


 * And this book: http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-26336-6 discusses how "“in 1923 that Theophilus Painter (1889–1969) published a very influential paper in the Journal of Experimental Zoology…this was not the first of his publications on the subject, but it was certainly the most important. Previously, in 1921 and 1922, he had ventured on possible human diploid numbers of 46–48 (Painter 1921,1922). In 1922 he had decided it was 48...”"


 * How many sources must you see that say “it was because of Painter’s authority and influence”?


 * Can you quote a source that says no one could find fault with his studies? FL or Atlanta gave a long quote talking about people that should have done just that, but then disregarded their results, and directly saying accurate counts from the images were impossible or extremely difficult, and providing quotes from a researcher that said it was amazing he even got close given the poor data quality. And it talked about how surprising it was that nobody criticized the results. Dr. Orrell reported that photos that clearly showed the correct number were labeled with the incorrect number.


 * And http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-26336-6 talks about how "“When the cytologist Tao-Chiuh Hsu managed to view a slide that Theophilus Painter had used in his research, he was amazed that anything could be discerned from the ball of wool that was the overlaid chromosomes. It would take a skilled observer a long time to be able to gain anything meaningful from these sorts of preparations. It is, under these circumstances, even more astonishing to consider that he came anywhere near to the correct human chromosome number.”"


 * The sources make it clear that your assertion no one could fault his work is totally false. There would have been plenty of grounds to challenge it had anyone tried, but no one did.


 * And I’m aware you don’t reject that Painter’s authority was appealed to, I said as much to Lord Mondegreen. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Which sources are the ones that “implies it in passing”, which one is the one that “never even implicates an appeal to authority”? I can’t very well comment on a source if it isn’t said which source is being referred to.Read. The. Discussion. I've outlined all of this before.
 * https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eva_Jablonka2/publication/259437489_Disturbing_Dogmas_Biologists_and_the_History_of_Biology/links/0deec52b9edd78ecb2000000.pdf That quote directly states "Painter’s authoritative chromosome studies in the 1920s" were responsible (emphasis added) You do know that there's a difference between one's work and oneself, right? A good scientist can publish a crap paper, and a crap scientist could publish a good paper. This says that Painter's study was authoritative, not Painter himself. This does not describe an appeal to authority, but an appeal to the quality of his work, which doesn't care who's name is on it.
 * http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/106/bok%253A978-3-319-26336-6.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fbook%2F10.1007%2F978-3-319-26336-6&token2=exp=1458660613~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F106%2Fbok%25253A978-3-319-26336-6.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Fbook%252F10.1007%252F978-3-319-26336-6*~hmac=33a418df8b7123a5e028ee62567a1c2e2af62146717686298baec98e6dce9084 Where in that quote does it mention Painter's authority, expertise, reputation or anything of the sort?
 * How many sources must you see that say “it was because of Painter’s authority and influence”? Well, just one un-contentious one would be a good start.
 * Can you quote a source that says no one could find fault with his studies? Nope. Hell, I've brought up the Tjio and Levan study several times, which faulted his work. Once new techniques were available to be used.
 * The sources make it clear that your assertion no one could fault his work is totally false. Seriously? If a source says "It would take a skilled observer a long time to be able to gain anything meaningful from these sorts of preparations.," we don't cite it to say "It would have been easy to challenge had anyone tried." The quote states clearly and in no uncertain terms that it would take a lot of hard work by a skilled person to redo his work, and you interpret that to mean the exact opposite! Jesus H. Christ, man. How do you come up with this crap?
 * And I’m aware you don’t reject that Painter’s authority was appealed to, I said as much to Lord Mondegreen. No, you didn't. You told him I agreed with you, which is akin to suggesting someone is a giant because they're taller than average, or that someone is a communist because they support socialized medicine. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Charitably interpreted, my comment was about disagreement over the extent to which different factors affected the spread of the inaccurate account, not over whether there were literally any appeals to authority at any point. Even if I had mischaracterized things, there are lots of polite ways to point that out which do not begin with "You need to read the discussion."
 * At any rate, I believe my point about the messiness of historical examples is unaffected. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's too easy to pull a quote from any one of those sources that strongly implies or directly states that the problem was the technology, or the quality of Painter's study. On top of that, I have serious concerns over the POV of including it. This is a case where Painter was, by all measures, a legitimate authority who made an uncontroversial claim backed up by good evidence, and turned out to be wrong. How does that illustrate that experts are right more often than not? Because "experts are right more often than not" is a fundamental part of the argument. It only works as a good example if we ignore that this is an argument, and conclude that this is only a fallacy. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have read the entire discussion closely, and I’m still not sure which sources you meant by which comments. Its been shown how every source talks about it being an appeal to authority.


 * And it certainly was accepted based on who Painter was. We have a source that directly says “In light of Painter's many other contributions to cytology, the scientific community accepted his estimate of the human chromosome number for 33 years”. Another source, http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/0092-8674%2879%2990249-6.pdf, talks directly about the weight of Painter’s authority and position influencing results: "“The colchicine-hypotonic method seemed like a miracle to Hsu, and so he set out to examine the human chromosomes in new detail. He struggled to confirm 48 chromosomes in his material-after all, Painter was a respected cytologist and president of the University of Texas, where Hsu had gotten his Ph.D. In the end he had to “force” a count of 48…”"


 * http://abt.ucpress.edu/content/41/7/395 is a scientist directly saying it was accepted and taught - including by they themselves - based on Painter’s authority. They say "“I learned, textbooks taught, and I taught that the human chromosome number was 2n = 48. Nobody ever pointed out that [when] Theophilus S. Painter of the University of Texas published this ‘fact’…that it was his best estimate based on counts of numerous human testis cells, and that other counts made by Painter suggested that 2n = 46. As science teachers we did not follow the scientific paradigm when we put our trust in an authority (Painter) and when we elevated a simple (and erroneous) observation to the level of an incontestable truth.”"


 * So the sources make it very clear that 48 was accepted based on who Painter was, and his status as an “authority”.


 * It wasn’t just once new techniques were available that Painter’s number could have been challenged. We have example after example of studies from that time not challenging Painter’s conclusions because 48 was supposedly the established number. http://amcbt.indstate.edu/volume_22/v22-2p3-9.pdf talks about how "“...why had so many scientists miscounted the chromosomes. Ford and Hamerton cited the personal observation of Dr. Hansen-Melander who kept finding 46 chromosomes in human liver cells. Hansen-Melander’s study was discontinued and never reported because 48 chromosomes could not be found.”"


 * It saying “It would take a skilled observer a long time to be able to gain anything meaningful from these sorts of preparations” is exactly my point. Painter’s data did not suggest the 48 that he was so positive about, it was very difficult to get a number at all from his data. People were getting a range of answers because of how hard the question was to answer. Like that prior source says, “From the first reports of chromosome numbers in human cells in the 1890’s to Painter’s review in 1930, reported chromosome numbers varied from as few as 8 to as many as a 100”. My point is not that someone else should have gotten the right number from Painter’s data, but that Painter’s data was uncertain and should not have been taken to be giving the definite answer like it was. Saying “this doesn’t prove 48” based on the data alone would have been simple, as the sources tell us.


 * I told Lord Mondegreen that you agreed the process went Bad data --> Painter’s declaration --> (at least some) appeals to his authority --> confirmation bias. Is that not so? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First off, you keep arguing that all sources say this when they don't. It's been shown repeatedly that the overall point of two of the original sources was that technical reasons were to blame, and technical reasons have been brought up by every single source except the contentious one. Some sources do say it was due to Painter's authority, though the only source which did more than mention it in passing is the contentious one until you brought in this new one. (Congrats on being willing to back up your argument with research, something FLoA seems morally opposed to). So now we have two sources ascribing it primarily to Painter's authority, one of which is contentious. But we also have two more sources implying or stating that Painter's authority contributed to it, while generally ascribing the error to technical reasons. And we have other sources (I can't remember if it is one or two off the top of my head) saying nothing at all about Painter's authority. Does that not illustrate how bad an example this is? If the sources don't agree, how do you expect editors to agree?
 * I told Lord Mondegreen that you agreed the process went Bad data --> Painter’s declaration --> (at least some) appeals to his authority --> confirmation bias. Is that not so? I've already answered this. Twice. Several sources make it clear that Painter was not the only one counting 48. He wasn't even the first to count 48. A lot of the studies that followed up on Painters' would have been trying to prove him wrong, because that's how science works. It's a fundamental part of the process, so basic as to not be worth mentioning most of the time. That can't be chalked up to confirmation bias. Nor can Tjio and Levan's paper, because it did prove Painter wrong. Again, I will state my position, because neither of you two seem to be getting it: I think this situation was far too complex to chalk it up to one, or even two factors. There were numerous reasons, some of them technical, some of the psychological, some of them situational and other systemic. This is not a clear-cut example of the fallacy, and even if it were, it doesn't do a good job of illustrating what makes this argument fallacious. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You keep talking about technical issues and Painter’s authority as if they are somehow two different options. Technical issues are what lead to the error, and then appeals to authority are why it was accepted. If you recall, this is exactly what the example said, that it was “based on poor data and conflicting observations”. You’re saying nothing that the edit doesn’t say.


 * Also, when you say “two sources”, which two sources are you referring to?


 * When you say sources mention something “in passing”, what exactly do you mean? And even if a source does report something “in passing”, does that not still mean the source is reporting it?


 * You say yourself every source mentions Painter’s authority played a role (“we have two sources ascribing it primarily to Painter's authority, one of which is contentious. But we also have two more sources implying or stating that Painter's authority contributed to it”), except for “we have other sources (I can't remember if it is one or two off the top of my head) saying nothing at all about Painter's authority”. Which sources are these? Swearing there are sources, but you can’t even remember how many is hardly persuasive. How can I know what sources you’re talking about if you yourself don’t?


 * Others were getting 48, a lot of others were getting numbers in the 20’s, and people were getting everything from 8 to 100. There were a wide variety of counts, but once Painter lent his authority to 48, that was what was established. We just saw a source that stated someone else reported 48 despite getting the correct count directly because of Painter’s stature – remember how it said “after all, Painter was a respected cytologist and president of the University of Texas, where Hsu had gotten his Ph.D. In the end he had to ‘force’ a count of 48”? You asked for sources that attribute 48’s acceptance to Painter’s “authority, expertise, reputation” – what could do so more strongly than this?


 * The situation is not complex. Every single source says there were a variety of counts. Every single source says Painter got the wrong number based on shaky data. Every single source says Painter’s count was the one that was accepted. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Break 2
You keep talking about technical issues and Painter’s authority as if they are somehow two different options. Can you seriously not understand the difference between "Professor Y says X so X is probably true," and "Experiment Z says X, so X is probably true"? Just because experiment Z was wrong doesn't make the second statement an appeal to authority, even if Professor Y agreed with the conclusions of the experiment. Hell, even if Experiment Z went wrong because the experimenter was expecting it to produce the same results as Professor Y claimed it should, anyone who relied on Experiment Z to support their own views is not appealing to Professor Y's authority, but to the apparent (if false) evidence produced by Experiment Z.

Your interpretation of events requires you to synthesize various statements together to paint a picture that conforms to your POV. That's not acceptable. Numerous problems are described by the sources without being conflated together and you are conflating them together to paint a neat picture. Sorry, but that's wrong.

When you say sources mention something “in passing”, what exactly do you mean? I mean that they mention people deferring to Painter's reputation, but make a point of describing in detail the technical limitations that kept scientists from demonstrating that he was wrong. It means they say it, but it's not their thesis.

Others were getting 48, a lot of others were getting numbers in the 20’s, and people were getting everything from 8 to 100. There were a wide variety of counts, but once Painter lent his authority to 48, that was what was established. Painter was not the only one counting 48. The most common counts were in the upper 40s. It wasn't like there was a smooth graphs of plots all over the place and Painter showed up and picked one and everyone believed him. He produced a number (he actually produced several numbers, saying that he counted 46 in his best plate even) that was right in the middle of the biggest cluster of counts.

You say yourself every source mentions Painter’s authority played a role No, I didn't. I explicitly said we have or or two sources which never mention Painter's authority.

For example, the closest thing this source comes is the phrase "Tjio’s unusual background and life experiences might have made him more likely than others to question authority regarding ‘48’." which is clearly referencing the authority of the scientific consensus, and not the authority of Painter himself.

The situation is not complex. It it wasn't, we wouldn't still be arguing this. Besides which, that is a very ignorant thing to say. We're talking about the history of science regarding human cytology. You'd better damn well believe that is a seriously fucking complex situation.

Every single source says Painter got the wrong number based on shaky data. Every single source says Painter’s count was the one that was accepted That's right. They all do. Notice how the words "authority" "expertise" and "reputation" don't appear in those sentences. Notice the lack of phrases like "the weight of Painter's opinion," or "deferred to Painter's judgement,". For the umpteenth time, no-one has argued that nobody appealed to Painter's authority. But there is a reason why we don't have all the sources explicitly agreeing that biology made a huge mistake by believing this guy instead of checking it out for themselves, which is the picture you two keep painting, and the picture the section paints. Instead, we see a very complex situation with tons of contributing factors, from ideology (suggestions that Africans had fewer chromosomes), to bias (some people appealing to Painter's authority) to technical limitations (some people reproducing Painter's experiments and seeming to confirm them), to systemic problems (existent better techniques not being used for decades). MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  20:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In this case, it was exactly “Professor Y says X so X is probably true”. We have sources directly saying it based on Painter’s authority and that people revised their data because of the weight Painter’s status lent to 48. You yourself say that “they mention people deferring to Painter's reputation”.


 * No one’s saying people should have been able to challenge Painter with a confident declaration of the right number during this time. As the sources have talked about, the data wasn’t good enough for him to have made the declaration “the number is 48”. It isn’t a matter of demonstrating he was wrong, it is a matter of demonstrating that he was unjustified.


 * And I know you “explicitly said we have or or two sources which never mention Painter's authority”. That’s why the very next words were “except for ‘we have other sources (I can't remember if it is one or two off the top of my head) saying nothing at all about Painter's authority’”.


 * The source you appeal to says “If anyone must bear the burden for broadcasting the incorrect human chromosome number, it is Painter”, says it was an “error…for which he was…universally cited”, says “no one appeared to question Painter's 48 count”, says that a researcher was "under the pervasive influence of Painter's count of 48 chromosomes". It lays it right at Painter’s feet.


 * People argue about whether the law of noncontradiction is true. There is nothing too simple for people to argue. Your assertions aside, do you have any source for this being a complex situation? Its pretty straightforward: someone of high standing got overconfident and made a declaration, and people believed him based on his authority until the technology advanced to the point that his error was completely untenable.


 * Multiple sources do explicitly talk about it being due to Painter’s authority and status, as we’ve seen. All of the sources do say that the acceptance of this count was unjustified – that’s what it means to be based on shaky data, as you agree “They all do” say.


 * The idea that different races might have different numbers of chromosomes would have gone against Painter’s suggestion that 48 was the universal number – we looked at a paper from the time that said just that. So this doesn’t support your claim. Bias supports what the example says. The technical issues are what caused the inaccurate count, the example says this, and they are identical to the “systemic problems” so that’s just artificially extending the list with a synonym. Painter’s account was repeatedly “confirmed” largely because of confirmation bias once it became accepted, as the sources have said. Contrary evidence was assumed to be incorrect.


 * So the only truly relevant factors are what you call the technical issues and the bias, which is what the example talks about.


 * So, if you agree that the sources say it was based on poor data, and you agree we have multiple sources that say it was because of his authority, on what basis can you defend your removal on the grounds that “only one (questionable) source supports it”?


 * And your assertion we have “two sources directly contradicting it” has also been laid to rest, as you haven’t shown anything “directly contradicting it” – at this point you aren’t able to even make that accusation, just say that things emphasize different parts of the situation.


 * So since we have multiple sources, and we’ve seen there’s nothing “directly contradicting” anything, the time’s come to restore the example. The source you dislike can be left out until something’s established at WP:RSN. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you just going to keep doing synthesis to argue your case? Because I'm not going to humor you any more if you are. The undeniable fact is, there is no consensus for adding this example for numerous reasons I, and  have laid out. You want examples? Fine. Find better examples. I've said before I would prefer having examples. But this one just plain sucks. Even if you were absolutely right about the sources (you're not, but we can hypothesize), that wouldn't change the fact that Painter was a legitimate authority making an uncontentious statement and providing evidence to support it, so this doesn't illustrate the fallacy.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel that part of the example is synthesis, there are places to issue such challenges to material in articles. There is no consensus for adding the example, and there is no consensus for excluding the example. We have a lack of consensus either way and per WP:NOCON, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". The example stood for nearly two years before you removed it, so in the absence of a consensus on its removal, policy is to keep it. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was removed per the consensus at as of this revision and the discussion at RSN. Your assertion that there was no consensus is false: your extremely limited participation does not retroactively override the discussions that lead to this.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Even in the Talk page discussion you link to, FL or Atlanta is disagreeing that it should be removed. I have been involved since the beginning and I disagree as well. The dispute has primarily been you, me, OP, and FL. Half of us have always disagreed that that example should be removed, and even if you don't want to count me when I wasn't quite active - which would seem hypocritical since you're counting OP despite the fact that he's not involved currently - 2 vs. 1 is not a consensus. And that discussion at the RSN is irrelevant as the example will no longer cite that source, for your sake. It will instead cite a source that everyone else so far has agreed is reliable. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First off, you had every opportunity to get involved in the talk page discussion. You did involve yourself in the RSN discussion. To say I "didn't count you" is extremely dishonest. You were counted, but you could not convince the rest of us. Second, the arguments from FLoA were posted a month and a half later, and followed his re-inclusion of the section with an edit summary that is simply dishonest. Third, why aren't you "counting" Lord Mondegreen, who has certainly been participating in the discussion?
 * Finally, you haven't addressed any of Mondegreen's problems with including this. Nor have you addressed my concerns about this example not being clear (besides insisting that it is, contrary to what the sources say), or about the fact that this example doesn't illustrate the form of the argument which is actually fallacious. Was Painter not an expert? Was he an expert in something else? Was his count highly controversial, or made in jest? Did scientists insist that he must be correct, contrary to the Tjio and Levan findings? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * “To say I ‘didn't count you’ is extremely dishonest. You were counted” – oh I might’ve been misunderstanding what you were saying. I thought you were essentially saying that there had been a consensus that consisted of you and OP since I didn’t provide a comment on the Talk at the time.


 * Yes FL commented later, but even in the edit you provided, OP was addressing him. He began it by saying “@FL or Atlanta For the reasons discussed above…”. This has been a very long-running discussion, it can take a while for people to chime in in specific discussions. That’s why we’re counting OP right now despite him not being on this page in weeks.


 * And I am counting Lord Mondegreen. Its 3 vs. 2 – that’s why there isn’t a consensus.


 * Both FL and I have addressed your claims about it not being a clear example multiple times, both here and at WP:RSN.


 * We have a source directly saying these appeals were fallacious. Remember: "we did not follow the scientific paradigm when we put our trust in an authority (Painter) and when we elevated a simple (and erroneous) observation to the level of an incontestable truth"


 * You ask “Did scientists insist that he must be correct, contrary to the Tjio and Levan findings?” - fortunately not, by that point the technology had advanced to the point the error was undeniable. But people did insist he must be correct despite lots of other findings at earlier times. Remember the example we looked at where: "The colchicine-hypotonic method seemed like a miracle to Hsu, and so he set out to examine the human chromosomes in new detail. He struggled to confirm 48 chromosomes in his material-after all, Painter was a respected cytologist and president of the University of Texas, where Hsu had gotten his Ph.D. In the end he had to ‘force’ a count of 48…”"


 * Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Break 3
I thought you were essentially saying that there had been a consensus that consisted of you and OP since I didn’t provide a comment on the Talk at the time. That's exactly what I was saying. Your lack of commentary was your commentary. You were active on WP at the time, and you were even editing the article around that time, including before and after the section had been removed. If you chose not to question the removal, or look at the talk page, or just not to comment, you don't get to sit here and complain that your voice wasn't heard. And don't try to suggest that you didn't notice it, because you participated at RSN.

Yes FL commented later, but even in the edit you provided, OP was addressing him. Yes, and he was arguing about a number of other issues at that time. He chose not to comment on the examples until an IP editor came along and made an edit that FLoA took as a license to go back to pushing his POV on the article again. That's not how this is supposed to work. If you think an article needs fixing, you don't lurk behind the scenes canvassing others and biding your time until just the right moment in a sneaky attempt to stack the discussion. That's just bad faith editing, something which seems to be FLoA's hallmark.

And I am counting Lord Mondegreen. Its 3 vs. 2 – that’s why there isn’t a consensus. That's right. There was a consensus before when only two people cared enough to discuss it. Now that you and FLoA have decided to take issue with it, you two have had your chance to convince anyone else, and you haven't. Hence, leave the section out until you can convince at least me and Mondegreen, or me and OP or OP and Mondegreen. A lone voice of opposition doesn't ruin a consensus (unless it's only two or three people coming to that consensus) and people not getting involved doesn't invalidate it. You and FLoA had every chance to participate in the previous discussion, and both of you elected not to.

Both FL and I have addressed your claims about it not being a clear example multiple times, both here and at WP:RSN. Bullshit. Both of you have insisted it was a clear cut case, but the only justification you can give is by interpreting the sources which focus the blame on technical issues in light of the sources which focus the blame on Painter himself; sources which are all written by non-biologists, I might add. They're still generally reliable, but not so much that they override contradicting sources.

Remember the example we looked at where: Congrats! You found a clear cut case of a scientist appealing to authority. Find a good source (not the Orrell source) that says plainly that this was widespread and common, and you can add the example with no objections from me. Otherwise, we're still in the same position: appeals to Painter's authority happened, but they don't even come close to fully explaining why the error stood for so long.

If you want an example section, you have my blessings to write one up. You could use hypothetical examples (which I'd probably edit, but not remove) which wouldn't require sources to support, or you could do something like what I suggested to FLoA earlier: Find some sources documenting politicians arguing about climate change, with the deniers citing political think tanks and the supporters citing climate scientists. That would do a wonderful job of illustrating both the fallacious and non-fallacious versions of this argument. I'd even help you build that section. It's this particular example which is just too messy to use. Of course, we'd have to convince Mondegreen to get on board with that, as he's opposed to an example section on principles. But with good examples, I think that could be done. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How was I not participating if I was at the RSN? I gave my voice that that was a reliable source – that’s how I was defending its inclusion. OP was explicitly addressing FL in his reply so clearly FL’s part of the conversation. Isolating a short, specific period of time where no one raised an issue in a specific place doesn’t somehow mean there was consensus. Otherwise I and FL could put something on this page, wait two days and if no one says anything say “there was a consensus on the change”. FL and I are and have been part of this discussion.


 * You say “Find a good source (not the Orrell source)” - everyone at WP:RSN has said the source is valid. Its 4-1 there - that is an example of consensus. And the other source does say it was widespread – it talks about how it was universally taught, then says “we” in the sense of teachers of science in general.


 * Plus, keep in mind everyone agrees there were appeals to authority taking place here. Those are what are being used as examples. Analysis of the other causes would belong more on the article for Theophilus Painter or human chromosomes. Here we're most interested in the arguments from authority aspect of it. The articles about biology would likely spend a lot of time focusing on what exactly the "bad data" and "conflicting observations" the example talks about were, but here what fits our subject is to focus on the arguments from authority. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How was I not participating if I was at the RSN? I said you were not participating in the discussion on this talk page. Whether or not that one source was reliable was not the only issue that was being discussed, it was simply the only issue you discussed. I also responded to everything you said, but you never replied back.
 * OP was explicitly addressing FL in his reply so clearly FL’s part of the conversation. That's right. And what did he have to say about the removal of the section? Nothing. Not until over a month later when he saw an IP editor make an edit that he thought supported his views.
 * You say “Find a good source (not the Orrell source)” - everyone at WP:RSN has said the source is valid. I was at RSN, and I did not say the source was valid. Also, SFarney said he thought it was valid because "A scientists usually has a grasp of the history of his branch of science, both the peaks and the pits." But Orrell is a mathematician, not a biologist. Sfarney made a good point. Had Orrell been a biologist, I wouldn't question that he wrote the section, then found a convenient source to cite. But he is not a biologist, he is a mathematician, and while he's worked tangentially with biologists, that doesn't say anything about his grasp of the history of biology. I've worked with biologists, but I don't claim to be an expert on the history of biology. So there are un-addressed issues still in that discussion. Even if all my concerns are addressed (and I'm not saying they can't be), that doesn't address the others concerns I, Mondegreen and OP have raised here.
 * And the other source does say it was widespread – it talks about how it was universally taught, then says “we” in the sense of teachers of science in general. That doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. All it does is establish that people believed his paper. It doesn't say a damn thing about why they believed it.
 * Plus, keep in mind everyone agrees there were appeals to authority taking place here. Those are what are being used as examples Have you actually read the section? That's not what it says. It says straight up that the count was upheld for years based on Painter's authority. Period. It doesn't say "Among many other factors (including technical limitations and questions about whether all humans even shared the same number of chromosomes), some scientists pointed to Painter's expertise as a reason..." or anything like that. If you had an example section with 5 two-three sentence examples, and something like that was one of them, I wouldn't object too much (it'd be better for you to cite a specific example, see below). But writing two paragraphs about it as the only example just gives a completely false impression of what the subject of the article is.
 * Here we're most interested in the arguments from authority aspect of it. If you can come up with some other examples (including at least one example of the appeal being used non-fallaciously), I would have no objection to you citing the Hsu count as an example of the fallacious appeal to authority, using that source.
 * The articles about biology would likely spend a lot of time focusing on what exactly the "bad data" and "conflicting observations" the example talks about were, but here what fits our subject is to focus on the arguments from authority. This is poor logic. You're suggesting that we can whitewash the issue of Painter's count down to being portrayed simply as an appeal to authority because you want to use it as an example of an appeal to authority. The issue with the count wasn't that simple, as I keep trying to explain to you, and as the sources make clear. There were appeals to authority involved, yes. But the issue as a whole (according to the authors of those sources with the most knowledge of the subject) had more to do with technical limitations and poor techniques. As I said above, you can cite the Hsu count as an example with no arguments from me, as long as it's balanced out by being in a section that contains both fallacious and non-fallacious examples. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I implied otherwise above, but let me contradict myself here: You don't have to be the only one coming up with examples. If you can find one non-fallacious example, I not only won't object to you citing the Hsu count as a fallacious example, but I'll find and source any further examples. I don't have (much of) a problem with having an example section, I just don't want one that pushes a "this is always a fallacy no matter what" POV. If you can show me that you're not trying to do that, I'll do my best to help you put together a good example section. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can find one non-fallacious example, I not only won't object to you citing the Hsu count as a fallacious example, but I'll find and source any further examples
 * Good idea! I'll add an old one that used to be on the page FL or Atlanta (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There were no non-fallacious examples on the 'old page'. Hell, there weren't any fallacious examples, just made up crap that wasn't supported by the sources and one vast oversimplification (which is still being argued here). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Aren't these ones good! They were added by Pbrower2a and Elikakohen. It even has global warming like you desired! Isn't this an excellent consensus version? Personally I'm very pleased with it! It needs some work but its a great improvement I think FL or Atlanta (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Try reading the actual talk page discussion instead of just reading whatever you want to into it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why aren't the new examples to your liking? FL or Atlanta (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You're edit warring back in contentious material. Can you really not figure that out on your own? Do I really need to hold your hands and walk you through some elementary school level thought? MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  00:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Something being contentious doesn't mean it gets removed. Something that's been on a page for years normally needs consensus for removal. But more importantly, what's contentious about the new examples? Why are they not to your liking? This discussion will keep going on forever unless we make a version we can all live with. There are lots of things we'll never agree on, so we need to figure out what sort of page we can at least bear to have. FL or Atlanta (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm done talking to you. I cannot imagine a world in which you are editing with anything resembling good faith. I am fully convinced that you are trolling. Do not take this as an excuse to start reverting the article again. You've caught one block already, and you've been told in no uncertain terms to stop editing this article, it's talk page and related pages. You're almost certain to catch another block for ignoring the message of the first and continuing to be edit disruptively. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stay! I truly think we're close to a breakthrough here. Think about it like this: in a lot of ways, the new example section would be like a consensus version between me, you, Pbrower2a, Elikakohen, and Perfect Orange Sphere. What could be better than a version that makes five people all happy (or at least, that they can bear to have)? FL or Atlanta (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not that source was reliable was the crux of whether the example stayed or not – its supposed unreliability is the reason you cited for removing the section. That is how I was participating in the discussion.

Even if there was some delay with a later reply, the point is that FL was part of the discussion (since OP was speaking to him), so discounting his opinion at that time is unjustifiable.

Yes you’re participating at WP:RSN but my point is that there’s a consensus against your position. And how is Orrell not a biologist if he does research in systems biology? Someone who does research in biology is by definition a biologist. A man can be more than one thing, you know. And neither Mondegreen nor OP has said anything bad about this source – you’re the lone voice for it being unreliable everywhere its been discussed so far.

And it absolutely does say why they believed it. It directly says “when we put our trust in an authority (Painter)”.

I think we’re not understanding each other on the “technical limitations” stuff. Can you explain a bit more how those, independently of any appeals to authority, could be said to have lead to 48 being universally taught and accepted as the human chromosome count? And once again, the stuff about different races having different counts would go against the acceptance of a universal count of 48. Painter’s work used subjects of different races, and we looked at a paper from the time that says the idea had been refuted – and it mentions him directly, by name – by Painter.

Again, if you feel the page would be improved with more examples, feel free to add them. There’s no reason to remove cited material because you feel we should also include other material. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not that source was reliable was the crux of whether the example stayed or not – its supposed unreliability is the reason you cited for removing the section. No, it wasn't, and no, it wasn't. The crux for the example being removed was that the two most academic sources painted a different picture than the journalistic source. I went to RSN to see if someone could convince me that it was a good source (I stated many times that I wanted to keep it), but the arguments for the source were weak and unconvincing to me. The RSN discussion changed my mind about it. The reason I cited for removing the section was the disagreement between sources, which is illustrated by the fact that I mentioned it first in my edit summary.
 * Even if there was some delay with a later reply, the point is that FL was part of the discussion (since OP was speaking to him), so discounting his opinion at that time is unjustifiable. I haven't discounted his opinion of the discussion at that time. He offered no opinion of the discussion at that time, despite the attempts by OP to draw him into it. He had plenty of (wrong) opinions about whether the argument was always a fallacy, but he offered no opinion on whether the example section should be removed.
 * Yes you’re participating at WP:RSN but my point is that there’s a consensus against your position. No, there isn't! Consensus is reached when either an overwhelming majority or a unanimity of agreement is reached. Right now, you've got the opinion of two editors whose competence has been seriously questioned, an IP who provided a drive-by comment and an editor who insisted on insulting me in response to me conceding that he could very well be right about something. You'd need to get some much better editors to respond there if you want to override my objections. Which, believe it or not, I wouldn't be opposed to. Whether Orrell is a good source or not doesn't really address my main problems with the section.


 * And how is Orrell not a biologist if he does research in systems biology? Someone who does research in biology is by definition a biologist. Only in the most technical sense, and not in a sense that implies any expertise in biology. Hell, I've worked for police departments. By your logic, that makes me a cop. I've smoked weed with my dealer when I was younger, therefore, I'm also a professional criminal. I've worked for a physicist, so I'm a physicist, I've worked with engineering, computer sciences, doctors, lawyers... The list goes on. By your logic, because I've done work in those fields and several others, I am by definition all of those things. Therefore, you should defer to my judgement, as I'm arguably an expert in just about any subject imaginable.
 * That doesn't really work, does it? Orrell works on systems biology, true. But he does that work as a mathematician. It is a field that requires both biology and mathematics. Ever listen to Brian Greene give an interview? He's a string theorist who does math day in and day out. But you ask him a question about math and the first words out of his mouth are "Well, I'm not a mathematician..." Compared to you or I, he's an expert in math. But compared to a mathematician, he's not. Similarly, compared to you or I, Orrell (probably) knows a lot about the history of biology. But compared to a biologist? Nope.
 * And neither Mondegreen nor OP has said anything bad about this source – you’re the lone voice for it being unreliable everywhere its been discussed so far.No, the original RSN discussion (about the fortunecity page) consisted of at least two other people questioning the reliability of it, and OP has said he couldn't verify and didn't trust this source. Even the editor who pointed out that Orrell cited it also pointed out that Orrell could have been citing the fortunecity version, which is unverifiable. Not that it matters. My concerns aren't confined to whether or not this source is reliable. Even if you convince me that Orrell's citation lends it enough credence to consider it reliable (a possibility I have not rejected, only raised objections to in order to see what others might think of them), there's still the issue of disagreement between the sources, and the issue of the POV using just this example would push.
 * I think we’re not understanding each other on the “technical limitations” stuff. Can you explain a bit more how those, independently of any appeals to authority, could be said to have lead to 48 being universally taught and accepted as the human chromosome count? Well, there are two reasons. First, because no-one (no editor nor source) has ever argued that Painter's study was flawed in any way that wasn't expected for the time. If people overlooked problems with the count due to his name, that would suggest one thing, but the count was not seriously contested at all (and if you think a scientist wouldn't immediately jump on even the slightest error in a paper published by his or her more well-known peer, you have no idea how science works. "Publish or perish" has its own WP article for a reason.). In fact, the sources speak rather highly of Painter's work, given the technology of the day. This strongly implies that the strength of his work had a lot to do with why his fellows accepted his count.
 * Second, once the count is accepted by the community, it is not the reputation of any given individual that propagates it. Nor is it any sort of 'peer pressure'. What happens is that good work (or apparently good work) will get published that presumes the 48 count, because the authors of it trusted either Painter's expertise or the quality of his work (or both). This work will be propagated itself, and further work will be built upon it. At that point, a young grad student doing his thesis work comes across the latter paper, finds it to be a good start, and starts building on it. He or she presumes the count to be 48, not because of any trust he has in any authority figures, but because from his perspective the count has been shown to be accurate with evidence that in turn supports other hypotheses since shown to be accurate with even further evidence.
 * I know that's a lot to read, and I'm sorry I couldn't shorten it up a bit. I'm sure you're going to accuse me of speculation, but before you do, just do some research into modern science. You will see that I'm not speculation, I'm accurately describing how it works. Furthermore, what I'm describing matches extremely well with the attention paid to the technical issues in the more academic sources. It explains why the sources all generally mention Painter's authority at some point, but always pay more attention to the development of new methods, and to the quality of Tjio and Levan's work.
 * Again, if you feel the page would be improved with more examples, feel free to add them. There’s no reason to remove cited material because you feel we should also include other material. As I have said several times now: This issue is too contentious, too complex, and too unclear to use as an example, and I am not the only one who has said this. I'm quite content to leave the article without any examples, per Mondegreen's argument above. I'm also okay with including a number of examples that illustrate both sides, if you and FLoA really want to include examples. But I will not consent to having just one, poor example that undermines the validity of any form of this argument. It's a POV push and it would be damaging to the article. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You keep saying the sources paint a different picture, but you never replied to what I said about the source you presented that supposedly does this. I said: "The source you appeal to says ‘If anyone must bear the burden for broadcasting the incorrect human chromosome number, it is Painter’, says it was an ‘error…for which he was…universally cited’, says ‘no one appeared to question Painter's 48 count’, says that a researcher was ‘under the pervasive influence of Painter's count of 48 chromosomes’. It lays it right at Painter’s feet."


 * We now have consensus at the WP:RSN that the new source is reliable. No one else anywhere has supported your contention that Orrell is not a good source here – it is unanimous. Whether you have personal issues with them that makes you consider them not “better editors” is irrelevant to that.


 * And it is obvious what his opinion in the discussion was, OP is addressing it.


 * How does someone doing research in biology not imply any expertise in it? If you publish research in biology you are a biologist by definition.


 * The original WP:RSN discussion was about a different source and so is irrelevant. If you feel sources disagree, then Wiki policy is to cite both so that is irrelevant to the example’s removal.


 * And it was precisely because of his name that people overlooked problems. We’ve seen sources that discuss people reporting different numbers because of Painter’s stature. Sources have been presented that talked about how flawed his study was, and express bewilderment at the fact that no one challenged it despite those flaws. Like this one, which talks about how poor Painter’s data was and says: "Most writers on this interesting period of human genetics have ascribed the problem of the continuing incorrect chromosome count following Painter to ‘pre-conception’. The number was supposed to be 48 so subsequent investigators did everything possible to make their counts 48. The surprise is why there were apparently no criticisms of the drawings published by Painter…I would agree that preconception was an important impediment to the delayed discovery of the correct human chromosome number, but I think that the surprising lack of criticism of the quality of the original data might have been equally important."


 * So does your criticism “if you think a scientist wouldn't immediately jump on even the slightest error in a paper published by his or her more well-known peer, you have no idea how science works” apply to this author getting their work published in Nature as well?
 * This is exactly why this incident became a problem. Normally people should criticize others if their evidence is bad, no matter who they are. But once appeals to authority come into the mix, you get people thinking things like “well, if that/these great scientists say the answer is this, how can I disagree? I must presume they are correct”.


 * And which sources speak highly of Painter’s work? You keep saying sources say things but then never cite them. Swearing there are sources for something but then not quoting them or even saying which source you’re talking about is not an argument. Its ironic that you accuse me of WP:SYNTH, but now you’re contradicting the sources’ account based on your conception of how science should work. We’ve all looked repeatedly at how the sources talk at length about how unjustified his conclusions were. Such as this source: "Nobody ever pointed out that [when] Theophilus S. Painter of the University of Texas published this ‘fact’…that it was his best estimate based on counts of numerous human testis cells, and that other counts made by Painter suggested that 2n = 46"


 * Or this source which goes into great detail about it: "When reading the original Painter papers on human chromosomes, one is struck by the fact that Painter is uncertain about the counts. In the first paper he states: ‘In my own materials the counts range from 45 to 48 apparent chromosomes, although in the clearest plates so far studied only 46 chromosomes have been found.’ He concludes that the true count must be either 46 or 48. In his main paper on chromosome counts in spermatogenesis, he still expresses doubts about the counts, but concludes that the correct count is 48. When I examined the figures in Painter’s papers, which are camera lucidadrawings of what one sees in the microscope, I could appreciate the difficulty in making an exact count. Tao-Chiuh Hsu, a prominent mammalian cytogeneticist and one of the discoverers of the hypotonic shock method for chromosome spreading, examined a slide from Painter’s collection and remarked that: ‘it’s amazing that he even came close.’ What, then, made Painter so positive about 48? In his 1921 paper, the main issue was whether humans had an X0 or XY sex-determining mechanism. In the 1923 paper, the total chromosome number was the main issue. He might have felt that if he was unable to determine the correct chromosome number he would not be able to publish the work."


 * It’s hard to imagine firmer criticism than saying his data was bad to the point the author speculates personal bias influenced him to state a firm conclusion from it.


 * Appealing to scientific consensus is an appeal to authority. You can appeal to the authority of groups as much as you can to the authority of individuals. The hypothetical grad student was making an appeal to authority when they said “the consensus is 48, so there must be good evidence that its 48”.


 * “It explains why the sources all generally mention Painter's authority at some point, but always pay more attention to the development of new methods” and yet again more claims about what the sources do that’re never supported by any actual references to sources or quotes from them.


 * You not consenting to the example doesn’t mean it gets removed. In the absence of consensus content removals don’t stick. 98.185.18.251 (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Break 4

 * My view is this: the purpose of examples are to illustrate the nature of the fallacy. The Painter case is not a good example (regardless of the quality of the sources) because it isn't a clear illustration of this fallacy. The page lists a number of ways in which arguments from authority can be fallacious.


 * 1) The authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise.
 * 2) The authority is not a true expert.
 * 3) The conclusion of the argument is claimed to be certainly true.
 * 4) The authority is presenting a contentious or controversial position


 * The problem with the Painter example is that none of (1) - (4) apply. Painter was being cited on a topic within his area of expertise, he was a true expert, the wrong chromosome count was not claimed to be certainly true, and Painter was not presenting a controversial or contentious position. Thus, it doesn't illustrate the fallacy of the argument from authority as presented in this article.


 * Frankly, I don't see how this issue continues to be so contentious. Our goal here is to make this page a good introduction to the idea of the argument from authority. If we use an example to illustrate this, we should be able to easily identify exactly what mistake is being made in the example. Original Position (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * “because it isn't a clear illustration of this fallacy.”


 * We have multiple sources that directly state people fell into error based on Painter’s authority. So as far as the sources are concerned, it is a clear illustration.


 * “The page lists a number of ways in which arguments from authority can be fallacious”


 * And they’re also fallacious when they’re put ahead of evidence. Or were Dr. Hansen-Melander and Hsu using perfectly legitimate reasoning when they disregarded their evidence because the weight of Theophilus Painter or consensus was against it?


 * “The conclusion of the argument is claimed to be certainly true”


 * We have a source that directly says “we put our trust in an authority (Painter) and…we elevated a simple (and erroneous) observation to the level of an incontestable truth”.


 * “we should be able to easily identify exactly what mistake is being made in the example”


 * Disregarding evidence because the conclusions it would lead to disagree with conclusions supported by authority. FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying the sources paint a different picture, but you never replied to what I said about the source you presented that supposedly does this. I have responded to this (the first part, because this is not a quote but a collection of quotes stuck together with some of your own commentary strewn in) at least 4 times, saying the same thing each and every single time. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because you refuse to listen. Furthermore, none of it really matters. As has been explained to you multiple times, by multiple editors, even if Painter's reputation was the only factor involved, this doesn't serve as a clear example of the fallacious version of the argument.
 * Painter was an expert in this subject (he was a respected scientist with a PhD).
 * Painter was not talking outside of the area of his expertise (which was cytology).
 * The count was not contentious or controversial (else it would have generated all the criticism both I and a source you just quoted said were lacking).
 * No-one claimed the count was certainly true (else the Tjio and Levan paper would have been rejected).

If you want to make the case that this was a fallacious appeal to authority because it was used to argue with evidence, you first have to find reliable sources that state that an appeal to authority is fallacious if it is used to argue with evidence. I've already looked for those, and I can't find any. The best I can find are simplistic, unsophisticated forum and blog posts from people with a simplistic and unsophisticated view of logic and science. See the section on this page titled "Contrary evidence not rendering an appeal to authority invalid" for an explanation of why this is a simplistic and unsophisticated view. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  14:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And each time you’ve responded, its just been a vague reference to what sources supposedly say, without quoting or even naming them.


 * And like FL just explained to OP, we have a source that directly says it was a fallacious appeal and says it was held as being certainly true. It is stated here that: "we did not follow the scientific paradigm when we put our trust in an authority (Painter) and when we elevated a simple (and erroneous) observation to the level of an incontestable truth"
 * We do have sources that say we know arguments from authority are weak because authorities have made mistakes in the past. Here for example you can see Carl Sagan saying “Arguments from authority carry little weight- ‘authorities’ have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts”. The inaccurate chromosome count is a perfect example of why this is so. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Compare that Sagan quote to what you're arguing and think about it for a while. Let's see if you can spot the problem. And for fuck's sake, stop arguing about the sources! It doesn't matter what they say, because even if you're right about everything you said, there are still the problems I mentioned above. Those highly specific, bullet pointed problems which OP has also pointed out. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't tell what problem you could be referring to - he says they carry little weight and that we should "Mistrust arguments from authority" because "Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong". This is an example of that. Doesn't it help illustrate what he says by giving an example?
 * As far as the bullet points go, like I said we do have a source that directly states that it had been "claimed the count was certainly true". And your third bullet point is exactly the problem: it should have been contentious, but it was not because people believed Painter's number based on who he was. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't tell what problem you could be referring to I'll give you a hint. It's the last sentence of your quote, when Sagan says "Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."
 * As far as the bullet points go, like I said we do have a source that directly states that it had been "claimed the count was certainly true". Explain why the Tjio and Levan paper wasn't rejected then. If it was certainly true, any evidence or argument to the contrary would have been rejected. Except it wasn't. You need to learn the difference between formal jargon and common language, because you constantly conflate the two. Just because someone says "certain" doesn't mean they meant it in the absolute sense that a logician would use it for when talking about logic. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. In science there should be no authorities, so arguments from authority shouldn’t even be possible in it. He's outright saying we should not trust arguments from authority because they have been wrong so often in the past - this example illustrates this.


 * Tijo and Levan’s paper wasn’t rejected because by that point much, much more detailed images of chromosomes could be made as opposed to Painter’s time. Compare the images in this source on pages 657 and 659. Painter’s images were a bunch of tangled blobs, while Tijo and Levan had images so clear you can see even the structure of every single chromosome. There was absolutely no room for ambiguity so their findings were impossible to rationally challenge.


 * Its like Bigfoot. You’ll be dismissed as loon if you bring a bunch of blurry pictures of things in the woods and say “See? There he is!”. But if you had a two hour long HD video and you could show everyone how to get to where he lived so they could see for themselves, no one could rationally deny it.


 * Also, the RSN discussion has concluded. It was 4:1 in favor of the source, and no one even on this page has agreed that we shouldn’t cite Orrell. So we now officially have consensus that it is a good source. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In science there should be no authorities, so arguments from authority shouldn’t even be possible in it. No, that's not what he's saying. You've changed where the word "should" fits into that quote to suit your argument. You don't get to do that. The proscriptive statement was made to the general public (the audience to whom he was writing). The statement about science was made to illustrate that science doesn't work that way. In effect, he's telling us that when a highly reputable scientists says X, other scientists don't believe him because of who he is, but because his work showed X. His mention of "experts" is the only concession to the appeal he makes, by implying that when one reads the paper by that reputable scientist which says X, one can at least trust that when the paper says they did the experiment in a certain way that it was actually done that way, by someone who knows how to do it that way. I know this is a lot of explaining for what seems like two simple sentences, but you really don't seem to grasp how science works. He explicitly contrasted his statements about science with his statement about what 'should' not be done.
 * There was absolutely no room for ambiguity so [Tjio and Levan's] findings were impossible to rationally challenge. So then the Painter number was not certainly the case. Because claiming it was certainly true would have required irrationality. Look up the definition of the word "certain", please. In any dictionary, it's going to say that "certain" means there not being any doubt. If, in fact, there had been no doubt about Painter's count, then scientists would have tried to explain away Tjio and Levan's findings. They certainly wouldn't have embraced them.
 * Its like Bigfoot. You’ll be dismissed as loon if you bring a bunch of blurry pictures of things in the woods and say “See? There he is!”. But if you had a two hour long HD video and you could show everyone how to get to where he lived so they could see for themselves, no one could rationally deny it. I'll let you consider that statement for a while. Get back to me if you want to re-phrase it.
 * It was 4:1 in favor of the source First off, as I've explained (and you've ignored) before, consensus is not a vote. Second, none of my concerns raised there have been addressed. Third, as I've explained (and you've ignored) before, even assuming the validity of the Orrell source doesn't make the case that this example should be included. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * “In effect, he's telling us that when a highly reputable scientists says X, other scientists don't believe him because of who he is, but because his work showed X”. Ideally that should be how it goes, and he says that isn’t always what happens. He says “One of the great commandments of science is, ‘Mistrust arguments from authority.’ (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.) Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else”.


 * Certainty doesn’t need to be absolute logical certainty. It means “not having any doubt about something: convinced or sure”, to say something is “fixed, settled”. Clearly, if scientists were fudging their data because they thought 48 had to be the right number, they did not have any doubt 48 was the number, and considered it fixed and settled. Tijo and Levan’s paper is what created doubt and made it so that they were not certain. Before their paper it was considered certain.


 * I have no idea what your link to the children’s movie is supposed to illustrate. No one’s trying to use it as evidence for anything.


 * Consensus isn’t a vote but everyone disagreeing with a position means there’s a consensus against it. Not a single other person on this entire website supports your contention that Orrell is unreliable. A discussion at the official place for such things returned nothing but opposition. Interesting that the RSN was iron-clad and binding when it was in your favor, but now suddenly its input means nothing. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally that should be how it goes... Absolutely nothing in that quote even remotely hints at what you're claiming he means. You might as well quote someone saying the sky is blue to prove the sky is orange. Seriously, try reading before you copy and paste. It helps. I mean, the quote starts with Sagan saying that not appealing to authority is "the great commandment of science." Yet you're arguing that he's saying that scientists appeal to authority.
 * Certainty doesn’t need to be absolute logical certainty. ... Seriously? This is an article about logic and you don't think the meaning of the word IN FUCKING LOGIC is the right one to use? I literally laughed out loud at this. Not even a quick chuckle. I mean a full-bore, throaty laugh that turned my face red. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I mean, your bizarre misinterpretation of the Sagan quote is bad, but it's understandable (you have an ideological position, and so you interpret what you read with the assumption that you're right). But this? Seriously now. We're not going to use a word with a specific meaning in logic in an article about logic to mean something very different from what it means in logic. Not gonna happen.
 * Consensus isn’t a vote but everyone disagreeing with a position means there’s a consensus against it. I honestly don't care. I've explained why numerous times. You keep harping on this as if it matters. Well, just because it's your best shot at making a valid point doesn't make it matter.
 * Interesting that the RSN was iron-clad and binding when it was in your favor, See, now you're just lying. The thing is that in both cases, questions about the source were raised and not answered. It's not about who voted (because once again, CONSENSUS IS NOT A VOTE, it was about the fact that no-one has any answers to the problems that have been mentioned. Sure, I mentioned the number of people, but I did so in response to the blatantly false claim that everyone said we should use it. And again, it doesn't matter. Orrell is not the problem with this example. It's just a contentious source. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * “Yet you're arguing that he's saying that scientists appeal to authority.” He outright says “(Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.)”.


 * Logical certainty is a technical term for something being true by definition, like “1+1 = 2” or “apples are apples”. No sane person has ever in all the history of the world said that because an authority says something we know it is logically certain. They mean “certain” in the dictionary sense of the word, “there is no doubt about it”.


 * No one is under any obligation to answer every question, and your questions have changed no one’s position. If everything always needed to be answered and one voice meant there was no consensus then we’d have to spend all day arguing with people who endorse every fringe theory in the world, and could do nothing until they were on board.
 * There is a consensus that Orrell is reliable, so it is settled. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Logical certainty is a technical term... I think you might want to follow your own link. It doesn't say what you think it says. What you're describing is self-evidence, a different concept entirely. In fact, a truth (the correct term) is one which is true no matter what. Again, as I said. If Painter's numbers were accepted as true no matter what, then Tjio and Levan's study would have been dismissed. Again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic fundamentals of philosophy. I'm not saying that to criticize you, but in the (likely vain, but still extant) hope that you will -at least in an attempt to prove me wrong about something- do enough research to gain a better understanding of the subject before you commit to making drastic changes to a philosophy article.

No one is under any obligation to answer every question, and your questions have changed no one’s position. Nor have any of your arguments changed anyone's mind (I've even told you exactly what it would take to change my mind). In fact, your persistence seems to have attracted only more opposition.

There is a consensus that Orrell is reliable, so it is settled Fine. As I've said countless times before, it doesn't matter. So let's assume you're correct about consensus. You still can't add the example because there are 4 people arguing against it and you haven't addressed any of their concerns with this situation's suitability as an example. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  21:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "What you're describing is self-evidence" not so. Not everything that is logically certain is self-evident. For example, it is logically certain that there is no solution to the Turing problem, or that Gödel's incompleteness theorem is true. However these things are not self-evident.


 * And that’s exactly my point: no one has ever said "authority X says Y, therefore Y is logically certain", including here. However they very often do say "authority X says Y, therefore I have no doubt that Y is true" or "there is a consensus among X group of authorities that Y is true, so the matter of Y’s truth is settled".


 * As far as consensus goes, 3 (you, OP, Mondegreen) vs. 2 (Me, FL) is not a consensus. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not everything that is logically certain is self-evident. I didn't say or suggest it was. You said logical certainty was "something being true by definition" which is both wrong, and which is close enough to be the definition of self-evident. A truth (again, 'truth' is the correct term for something which is logically certain, and "logical certainty" is not at all a technical term, but a descriptive one, hence why your link was a redirect) is something which remains true, no matter what happens. It is something which it is not possible for anything to disprove. Again; READ THE LINKS BEFORE YOU POST THEM. It's all explained there in pretty clear terms.
 * And that’s exactly my point: no one has ever said "authority X says Y, therefore Y is logically certain", including here. However they very often do say "authority X says Y, therefore I have no doubt that Y is true" or "there is a consensus among X group of authorities that Y is true, so the matter of Y’s truth is settled". Again, you are conflating common language with technical language. When a scientist says something like either of the final two quotes, what they are referring to is their belief, but the simple fact that they are scientists and they are writing about science tells us that this occurs within the domain of Scientific skepticism, an absolute requirement for any scientist. This means there's always a caveat of "...unless and until I observe evidence to the contrary," whenever a scientist says that something is certain, or that they believe something.
 * As far as consensus goes, 3 (you, OP, Mondegreen) vs. 2 (Me, FL) is not a consensus. For the umpteenth time, consensus is not a vote. But since you seem so fixated upon votes, let me tally them for you:
 * Include the example
 * You
 * FLoa
 * Do not include the example
 * Me
 * OP
 * Mondegreen
 * Aquillion
 * Darouet
 * Undecided
 * Tornheim (but he seems to lean towards not including it)
 * So there you have it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If it is wrong that something that’s logically certain is true by definition, can you give me an example of something that is logically certain that is not true by definition?
 * Something that is true no matter what happens is true in of itself – true by definition.


 * You have a strange view of scientists. They’re people, no different from you. They make logical fallacies and they’re hypocrites and they make mistakes. Not all of them are skeptical, many are gullible. A person doesn’t become the paragon of a standard just because they get a job. The problem with “unless and until I observe some evidence” is that often evidence can get ruled out on bad grounds, like the scientist who kept finding 46 chromosomes in liver cells so he threw out his data that we looked at.


 * I’m aware consensus is not a vote. My point is that when nearly half the people involved disagree, there is no consensus. As far as your list goes, you forgot TheLogician112, who wants the example. Also Aquillion’s concern that none of the sources explicitly used the term “argument from authority” has now been addressed, and a source added that does just this, so I wouldn’t be so sure he’d still say we shouldn’t have the example. I’ll ask him on his Talk.


 * Overall it looked like its gone from 2 vs. 3 to 3 vs. 5. Still a deadlock.


 * But at this point, on what grounds can we exclude the example? All the concerns rooted in fact have been addressed – we’ve got a reliable source that explicitly refers to this as a bad argument from authority. You might not want it for stylistic reasons, but we have no consensus for its removal so per WP:NOCON the removal wouldn’t stick. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If it is wrong that something that’s logically certain is true by definition, can you give me an example of something that is logically certain that is not true by definition? If death is bad only if life is good, and death is bad, then life is good. Notice how this is an argument, not a statement.
 * You have a strange view of scientists. You wouldn't think so if you knew any scientists. I never suggested they don't ever make fallacies or have biases or make mistakes.
 * As far as your list goes, you forgot TheLogician112 He hadn't posted yet when I made the list. There's a reason we have timestamps in our signatures. Also, he hasn't said he wanted it. He (ignorantly) said everyone else wanted it.
 * Also Aquillion’s concern that none of the sources explicitly used the term “argument from authority” has now been addressed, and a source added that does just this Yeah, one of the worst sources you could have found. Demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of the history of science when writing about the history of science doesn't do much to establish one's credentials. And don't even try to claim that the fact that it was written by someone with a PhD makes any difference, because we've been over this a hundred times. If they're not a philosopher, they're not an expert.
 * But at this point, on what grounds can we exclude the example?Because even if you're right about everything, it's still obviously unclear and contentious. The fact that me saying "Find a better example," or even "that specific instance within the scope of this subject would be okay as an example, just not the whole subject," has never registered with you doesn't reflect well on your willingness to work with others.
 * Overall it looked like its gone from 2 vs. 3 to 3 vs. 5. Still a deadlock. Yeah, and in the case of material that contentions: we leave it out.
 * but we have no consensus for its removal so per WP:NOCON the removal wouldn’t stick. No, there was no consensus for it's INSERTION. But you did it anyways, and you are your little buddy ganged up to edit war it back in after I reverted. It needs to be out of the article. You've had plenty of chances to compromise or gather support, and so far, all you've accomplished is convincing some rookie editor, while four veteran editors have jumped in to describe problems with using this. The way things are going, you're going to end up getting drowned out. Maybe I should go post something to the fringe noticeboards, and we'll see how many veteran editors there look at this and say "Yeah, if there's this much issue with that example, it should stay out." MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * “If death is bad only if life is good, and death is bad, then life is good.” would be true by definition. Death is being defined as something that is bad if life is good, and then being defined as bad, thus meaning life is defined as good.


 * And you have suggested they never make fallacies or have biases. You assumed for example “A lot of the studies that followed up on Painters' would have been trying to prove him wrong, because that's how science works. It's a fundamental part of the process, so basic as to not be worth mentioning most of the time”, which as we’ve seen is not correct. And now you’re assuming they’re always impartial, monk-like weighers of evidence. And I do know plenty of scientists – including myself, I’m a biologist. The same sort of thinking going on with Painter goes on in labs everyday.


 * My apologies – I hadn’t realized the timing difference with TheLogician112. But he has said that it’s what he wants – he said “these views are my own - to include the example”.


 * The source doesn’t demonstrate a misunderstanding of anything, FL has already addressed all of your arguments along those lines.
 * And the discussion at the RSN has not agreed with you that someone needs to be a philosopher to be cited on the page. We have 8 in favor of scientific sources being acceptable – FL, TheLogician112, Collect, myself, Gamaliel, two IP’s, and Darouet all say that citing scientific sources for facts on the page is acceptable. We had a few neutrals as well, but no one who wasn’t already part of this dispute agreed that scientists are unacceptable to cite on this page.


 * And the example isn’t unclear, we have multiple reliable sources directly calling it an appeal to authority.
 * It being contentious, as far as its inclusion for now on the page goes, is rendered irrelevant by WP:NOCON.


 * No one had any problem with its insertion two years ago. No one had had any problem with it since until recently.


 * Someone being a “veteran” editor, or even Admin, gives their opinion no more weight on Wikipedia than anyone else’s. You don’t get more and more say depending on your edit count. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

“If death is bad only if life is good, and death is bad, then life is good.” would be true by definition. No. It is an argument, not a statement. Do you understand the difference? There is no such thing as a definition of a particular argument. Arguments require predicates, and expose truth through those predicates. The conclusion is only true if those predicates are true and the logic is valid. If you were correct, then the argument could be reduced to the statement "life is good," at which point you could ask anyone seeking euthanasia if it were true and they would tell you that it is not.

The source doesn’t demonstrate a misunderstanding of anything, FL has already addressed all of your arguments along those lines. No, he hasn't. he tried and failed so miserably that only someone who wants him to be right could fail to see how. For example, he claims they never said there was no ice on Mars, however they expressed Hyugens conclusion as "Ice?" I said they implied Hyugens was wrong, and that is exactly what they did. There is no semantic or rhetorical reason to use a question mark unless they were questioning the conclusion. Furthermore, they mentioned three scientists by name, each time identifying them as a scientist, then mentions Wells without identifying him as a writer, and referred to his fictional writings as him having "derived a theory...". By that logic, J.R.R. Tolkien once "derived the theory" that the world was saved by a very short guy with hairy feet. FLoA argued semantics, equivocated "stated" with "implied", ignored the fact that there's no record of Schiaparelli 'building upon Hyugens work' to identify the canals (As FLoA himself pointed out, Schiaparelli never implied they carried water, which leaves one wondering what the hell that had to do with polar ice). Furthermore, he claims I "ironically misunderstood" because I referred to them as canals, when anyone who knows the slightest thing about astronomy knows that Martian canals is the most common name for them.

And the discussion at the RSN has not agreed with you that someone needs to be a philosopher to be cited on the page I haven't said they need to be a philosopher to be cited on this page. If I thought that, I'd have erased the entire "Psychological basis" section. Way to completely get what I said wrong. You should get a medal for it.

No one had any problem with its insertion two years ago. No one had had any problem with it since until recently. Ahh! You've caught me! I suppose that errors which stand for two years must, by definition be correct. In which case, we still can't use the example because -per your logic- Painter's count must be correct. But you first put the example in two years ago, so we must put it back in! But we can't because Painter can't have been wrong! Oh, trying to follow crappy logic is so confusing, I think I'm going to just stick with "no-one correcting an error doesn't mean it's not an error."

Someone being a “veteran” editor, or even Admin, gives their opinion no more weight on Wikipedia than anyone else’s. Who the hell said anything about anyone's opinion having any more weight? I advised a new editor not to tell veteran editors how WP works, and explicitly explained that this is because it takes a while to get a feel for how WP works. Are you even capable of honestly and accurately representing anything I said? If not, then that might explain why you're so intent upon carrying this argument on long past the point where it's become obviously unproductive.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why you can't accept the compromise proposal I made (multiple times) for using that one specific example of the cytologist "forcing' a count of 48, unless you're still trying to push the POV that these arguments are always fallacious. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what I'm saying. My point is not really about the substance of the issue so much as a writing composition one. I'm not sure if later scientists made an error in reasoning by accepting Painter's chromosome count. It is certainly possible (I am not familiar enough with the history of the field to say). Perhaps this error in reasoning was even some version of the argument from authority. But that doesn't doesn't address my reasons for not liking this example. My point is that this is not a useful example for the reader in illustrating the argument from authority because it doesn't refer back to our earlier criteria for what makes an argument from authority fallacious. Rather than helping the reader understand the prior definition by giving a real-world example of a fallacious argument from authority and pointing out how it fits the given criteria for such arguments, it rather functions as a data point for constructing a theory of arguments from authority. I think that would confuse readers.Original Position (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How on earth are Carl Sagan and a biologist being cited as authorities in an article on informal logic? Lord Mondegreen (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They're being used as a source for how the argument goes in science. The page specifically says its only referring to science there. The sources might indicate arguments from authority are viable in philosophy or other subjects, but when it comes to science the sources show they are not. Someone could equally ask how a philosopher is an authority on the process of science. I've made a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard ab″out this - let's see what the conclusion is. FL or Atlanta (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not WP:RSN. This is an issue for WP:NPOVN, since the concerns people are raising focus primarily on WP:DUE weight rather than on whether the sources pass WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Break 5
It seems to me the issue is not so much whether appeals to authority are permissible in science as opposed to other fields, as whether appeals to authority are permissible in the academic literature in any given field as opposed to in deciding what to believe as an individual. In philosophy, no less than in science, it would be inappropriate to publish a paper that says "Socrates says that p, so we have good reason to believe that p." On the other hand, it would be perfectly reasonable in either case for an individual to believe something on the basis that the relevant experts believe it, even if she is not familiar with the grounds on which those experts believe it. If that is what the Sagan quote is supposed to support, then I suggest that we find a reliable source on informal logic or epistemology and include this distinction in the article. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "On the other hand, it would be perfectly reasonable in either case for an individual to believe something on the basis that the relevant experts believe it, even if she is not familiar with the grounds on which those experts believe it"


 * Our sources don't take this view. [abt.ucpress.edu/content/41/7/395 This source] directly talks about a time when people were believing and teaching humans had 48 chromosomes and not being "familiar with the grounds on which those experts believe it". In the end it turned out that it was just "his best estimate based on counts of numerous human testis cells, and that other counts made by Painter suggested that 2n = 46", so the paper concludes "we did not follow the scientific paradigm when we put our trust in an authority (Painter)". And Sagan directly says "arguments from authority carry little weight" in science and that "mistrust arguments from authority" is "one of the great commandments in science". He also said, in the context of science, "all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless". So the scientific sources do not support your contention that we're justified in believing things in science just because so-called authorities say they're true. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that those sources disagree with what I've said, or at least that you interpret them in that way. However, I don't accept that these are reliable sources, for reasons that I've already given. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose its a matter for the RSN, then. FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I gotta ask - above I said that "it would be perfectly reasonable ... for an individual to believe something on the basis that the relevant experts believe it, even if she is not familiar with the grounds on which those experts believe it." And you said that your sources dispute this. So you are saying that, according to Carl Sagan, it's not reasonable for me to believe in, for example, black holes, electrons, or fault lines unless I am personally familiar with the scientific evidence that supports the existence of those things? I shouldn't believe what I read in textbooks without personally carrying out the experiments myself? Setting aside all questions of verification and reliability for the moment, does this strike you as a remotely plausible view? Lord Mondegreen (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's not talk about my personal views, this is for discussing the page itself and the sources. These questions don't even seem to need an answer. Do you truly think I'd say "yes, you shouldn't believe what you read in textbooks without personally carrying out the experiments yourself?" FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how else to interpret your objection to my claim that "it would be perfectly reasonable ... for an individual to believe something on the basis that the relevant experts believe it, even if she is not familiar with the grounds on which those experts believe it." Lord Mondegreen (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)