Who would be dumb enough to settle for that nice Jewish Fella that walks on water, raises the dead, and talks about the need to be truthful, when everyone else and the cool sophistics think otherwise?

They had all sort of logical reasoning and theories to back up their beliefs. I can go into some of them if you like. The end game is they “wouldn’t” consider the possibility of alternate input of energy or alternate life forms that did things a bit different than known life forms of the time.

It is easy to say something is obvious after the fact but it wasn’t obvious to 99% of them back then.

Chemosynthesis may have been known for a while now but I bet if you take a poll most wouldn’t know about it. Being 90% right while claiming to be 100% right is not right. Ha HA

“Now when the majority has a logical reason to disagree with you, and you don't have a logical reason to support your belief, then you're most likely wrong”

For the most part I would agree. However there have been plenty of times when my gut instinct was right when data pointed the other way. For the most part I put my faith in proper logic. Also seldom does one side not have perceived logical reasons to back their conclusion.

All generalizations are false, including this one.

Bill

I was ridiculed as a kid in school when I refuse to accept the fact that “life can’t exist without the suns energy”. I couldn’t say at the time that life did exist without the use of the sun’s energy but firmly believe that it could. Now we know that it does. Take a poll today and it would still show that a large majority know “life can’t exist without the suns energy”.

Was I and am I still wrong because I am in a small majority?

Going back to my first comment, the fact that they all disagreed with you wasn't important, because they didn't have a logical reason for disagreement. As Tlaloc pointed out, logic only dictates that energy is required, but not necessarily solar energy.

Now when the majority has a logical reason to disagree with you, and you don't have a logical reason to support your belief, then you're most likely wrong.

I was ridiculed as a kid in school when I refuse to accept the fact that “life can’t exist without the suns energy”. I couldn’t say at the time that life did exist without the use of the sun’s energy but firmly believe that it could. Now we know that it does. Take a poll today and it would still show that a large majority know “life can’t exist without the suns energy”.

Was I and am I still wrong because I am in a small majority?

Chemosynthesis is pretty widely known (life that exists in hydrothermal vents, metabolizing sulpher compounds as an energy source and not relying on solar at all). Notice how that what the teachers were really saying was 90% right- "Life requires energy" is correct barring a complete upheaval of physics that would pretty literally change everything. The part they got wrong was just "the sun is the only source of energy for life."

Beyond that I wonder on what particular issue Sullivan would feel the President is so wrong? The country is essentially split 50/50.

Cowan's point is something everyone should already know and practice. Self examination of one's beliefs and convictions is something intelligent people do every day. We must also realize that on some things opinions are formed from personal experience and can vary from person to person with no one being wrong.

I question all assumptions, facts and conclusions regardless of where they would fall in a poll. There is a point where I have to make a decision but try to do so with limited bias.

For one thing most of those poll are repeating hearsay more often than an inform decision. Even those who fall under a specific field tend to simply repeat what is taught to them. Those who study Freudian psychology tend to spout Freudian theories and supporting facts. Repeating supposedly learn lessons is understandable since it would be impossible to research all assumption yourself. However it leaves them wide open to being wrong when they take assumptions as undeniable facts.

I was ridiculed as a kid in school when I refuse to accept the fact that “life can’t exist without the suns energy”. I couldn’t say at the time that life did exist without the use of the sun’s energy but firmly believe that it could. Now we know that it does. Take a poll today and it would still show that a large majority know “life can’t exist without the suns energy”.

Was I and am I still wrong because I am in a small majority?

Wait, there's a large chunk of people who believe in God, but not life after death?

Deism is the new Black.

Joyner-
I think you are reading too much into this. I take Cowen's point to simply be that everyone disagreeing is a warning sign, one that should give you pause. It's like Occam's Razor- not a hard law, just a guideline that usually can point you in the right direction or at least suggest a good starting point.

A position that seriously deviates from the consensus position requires more support. It is not automatically invalid, of course. The Asch conformity experiments illustrate the danger of making consensus the only criteria for correctness.

Another reputable survey has just found that 92 percent of Americans believe in God, three-quarters believe in life after death

Wait, there's a large chunk of people who believe in God, but not life after death?

He is right that if you are alone or in limited company on a belief, you should question your facts and assumptions. This is based on the whether it is simpler for 99% of the people to have gotten 'it' wrong or for you to have gotten it wrong.

As an aside, given the polling in support of the war, when Obama said he was against the war (this is before he said his position on Iraq was the same as Bush), then shouldn't he have been worried he was wrong at the time?

Indeed, by this logic there are times when my students, simply by dint of numbers, know more than I do. God help me if I graded American National Government exams by this logic.