Perhaps it is an argument from meta-authority, or a meta-argument from authority :) But I don&#x27;t think it is. The argument is simply that there&#x27;s little reason to accept a factual statement as correct if it is not supported by factual study.<p>The reason I&#x27;m so sensitive about this issue in particular is that I&#x27;ve personally been involved both with the social sciences and STEM, and I&#x27;m extremely annoyed to see people in the latter group put so much emphasis on evidence, and at the same time display such a broad dismissal of the former group without so much as a rudimentary understanding of the field(s). You hardly see historians dismiss research in solid-state physics as you see computer scientists dismiss research in sociology (which goes above and beyond the well-accepted inaccuracy of the latter due to intractability).