What's new

"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

Nice quote Milsapa. Consensus science has brought us such wonders as the earth-centered universe. Disputing which, Gallileo almost paid for with his life.
Galileo disputed this idea with observations and evidence that were suppressed for religious reasons. It's hard to tell what tone comes across in these posts, and I am definitely not trying to argue or be negative, I am just interested in this conversation so don't get me wrong. There is really very little reason that the mainstream scientific community would suppress new evidence that countered global warming. Yes, individuals may lose funding, and there have been issues regarding falsified data for this very reason. These falsified reports have however been acknowledged by the scientific community as a whole, and there is still a consensus (scary word). One can argue that there would be more to gain with a credible scientific discovery disproving climate change. This hasn't really happened and there is no mutual reason to suppress such evidence, even if one or a few individuals would be interested in doing so. You have to admit this comparison to and geocentric universe is a stretch at best.
 
Originally Posted by Michael Chrichton
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . .

I admit climate change is less concrete than these ideas, however natural selection is not. Natural selection is observable. Yes, it is called the "Theory" of Natural Selection, but there is also the Theory of Gravity. This word is used differently in the scientific community. You do have a valid point, although climate change is becoming less and less consensus each year as we gather more evidence of the climate change actually occurring. I believe loggrad pointed out that the issue is about the human linkage to the climate change. That is more debatable and relies more on the consensus are so against. If that is your argument it is a valid one, and so be it, but the actual occurrence of climate change should not be up for debate.
 
Also this is Michael Crichton's opinion. Just because he believe consensus to be a bad thing, does not make it so.
 
I admit climate change is less concrete than these ideas, however natural selection is not. Natural selection is observable. Yes, it is called the "Theory" of Natural Selection, but there is also the Theory of Gravity. This word is used differently in the scientific community. You do have a valid point, although climate change is becoming less and less consensus each year as we gather more evidence of the climate change actually occurring. I believe loggrad pointed out that the issue is about the human linkage to the climate change. That is more debatable and relies more on the consensus are so against. If that is your argument it is a valid one, and so be it, but the actual occurrence of climate change should not be up for debate.

Why do you get your panties in a bunch over these useless "theories?"

So the fit survive! The cavemen figured that out when they picked up a club for the first time.
Wow, the climate changes. Woopdeedoo. I guess it's a good thing we have the ability to adapt.

Why can't you get more concerned with useful theories that help human kind in some way?
 
Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant.

What stark, flaming ignorance (combined with the Galileo gambit). You build consensus in science by being right, and being able to demonstrate you are right. Pretending they are separate is just rhetoric. The germ theory of disease is the consensus because it is right. The rasioactivity of uranium is the consensus because it is right. Global warming is consensus because it is right.
 
Wow, the climate changes. Woopdeedoo. I guess it's a good thing we have the ability to adapt.

There has never been a human civilization on a much cooler or warmer climate than we currently have. We may survive as a species, butthat doesn't mean our civilizations will survive along with it.
 
What stark, flaming ignorance (combined with the Galileo gambit). You build consensus in science by being right, and being able to demonstrate you are right. Pretending they are separate is just rhetoric. The germ theory of disease is the consensus because it is right. The rasioactivity of uranium is the consensus because it is right. Global warming is consensus because it is right.

Exactly this.
 
Exactly this.

I suppose you guys have PhD's to back up your critcism of the opinion of another person who is actually a scientist with a PhD?

But again, to be fair, opinion doesn't need any kind of advanced degree. However to argue opinion against opinion, usually a higher level of expertise weights that person's opinion more highly.

I give Kicky's opinion in the matters of law more weight than say, my own, because he is a lawyer and I am not. Doesn't mean he is always right about it, but it still carries more weight.

So you can say what you want, but I take Crichton's opinions regarding science more seriously than a layman's.


Oh and apparently he is not the only one who feels that consensus science is suspect:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/

It is indeed hard to disagree with Mr. Crichton. The historical track record of scientific consensus is nothing but dismal. Many examples can be cited, but there are some classical ones. Nicholas Copernicus and his follower, Galileo Galilei, experienced the effects of consensus when they advanced theories that planet Earth was not the center of the Universe. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not the right time to go against established dogmas.

Pretty sure that guy has a clue.

https://www.geronet.ucla.edu/research/researchers/349?831a6a7603aca2da33e5c8f97a3f7b84=nelxaznspo

[EDUCATION & CERTIFICATIONS]
PhD in Biochemistry, University of Buenos Aires
PhD in Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign



But again, I guess it is still my opinion. I fully accept that I may be wrong. But so may you.
 
Please name all the scientists who wanted Galileo killed.

Hey One Brow, Galileo was a scientist in an era where the government used religion to control the people, well, or vice versa the religion used the government to control the people, and hence there was a management need to maintain the "consensus" and proscribe any challenge to it.

Historically, almost all normative belief systems have managed to have a paid "clergy" or "authoritative expert" staff on hand to beat the drums to keep people from questioning "consensus". But still, the path of history is littered with discredited beliefs once upheld as "consensus".

There's nothing magic about science, so called. Either we apprehend the universe in a way that resembles the facts usefully, or try to see it in some way that really isn't so. We have to try to make the connection more reliable by doing research that generates valid correpondence patterns or that generates more valid correpondence concepts.
 
Please name all the scientists who wanted Galileo killed.

Michael Crichton tells us about the poor track record of consensus among scientists:

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.

In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
 
I suppose you guys have PhD's to back up your critcism of the opinion of another person who is actually a scientist with a PhD?

So you can say what you want, but I take Crichton's opinions regarding science more seriously than a layman's.

What he said.
 
Back
Top