Consensus becomes unethical when ...

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Consensus becomes unethical to science when it become consensus. Consensus becomes a brick wall with no door. Consensus leads quickly to theories being publicized as fact (Big Bang for instance.) Consensus is a very sad state of affairs.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Do you mean to imply that once consensus is reached, there is no further development, because it is a "brick wall"? I'm not sure I understand your point fully.

[TonyMcC]

Consensus is a weaker thing than unanimity as some of the group will accept the decision of the majority without,themselves, being really convinced. However,I think that a lone voice in the wilderness is more likely to be wrong than a decision brought about by consensus within a group. By the way as far as I am aware The Big Bang is still only a theory.

[the asinine cretin]

I don't believe that consensus is a scientific principle to begin with. It is a useful concept in contexts that must be informed by science, such as policy-making, but as far as scientific methodology is concerned consensus is not a criterion of truth (at least as I understand things). Appealing to scientific consensus to establish the veracity of something is simply a logical fallacy. If something is a matter of scientific consensus this is because the evidence is to some extent definitive, or at least highly compelling. Therefore, saying such-and-such is a matter of scientific consensus, or that "experts in the field say...", should translate to a higher expectation of overwhelming evidence. Problems arise when that evidence is less than perspicuous to the hoi polloi. Personally, I have seen very clear layman's terms expositions of the evidential basis of big bang cosmology. Do you believe that Big Bang theory is dubious for some reason?

[Phi for All]

Consensus becomes unethical to science when it become consensus. Consensus becomes a brick wall with no door. Consensus leads quickly to theories being publicized as fact (Big Bang for instance.) Consensus is a very sad state of affairs.

It's clear you only think you know what consensus means. It does NOT mean, "Hey, does everyone agree with this? Yes? OK, 'nuff said, let's move on!" When enough evidence supports an idea, and there is no better explanation, it's usually called theory and scientists agree to use it, but keep trying to find something better. Consensus is not a dead end. There is plenty of proof of science treating an idea as the best available, then changing when a better explanation came along.

 

And the Big Bang theory didn't "quickly" come into being. Many observations had been made prior to the idea being put forth, and many have been made since that time that happen to support it. In fact, much of the early theory was formulated back in the 1920s, but it wasn't until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964, and the huge support that evidence gave, that many scientists arrived at a consensus that something like the Big Bang must have happened.

 

What is a really sad state of affairs is when people fail to study things for themselves, and just listen to the opinions of others and take them as Gospel.

[questionposter]

I think the OP is suggesting that whether or not something is a fact is merely the opinion of the scientists in the convention where it was determined, which is partly true, but you also have to consider the fact that there's generally much evidence and much to look at in a scientific theory which becomes fact to the point where there's almost no room to interpret it another way.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

It's clear you only think you know what consensus means. It does NOT mean, "Hey, does everyone agree with this? Yes? OK, 'nuff said, let's move on!" When enough evidence supports an idea, and there is no better explanation, it's usually called theory and scientists agree to use it, but keep trying to find something better. Consensus is not a dead end. There is plenty of proof of science treating an idea as the best available, then changing when a better explanation came along.

 

And the Big Bang theory didn't "quickly" come into being. Many observations had been made prior to the idea being put forth, and many have been made since that time that happen to support it. In fact, much of the early theory was formulated back in the 1920s, but it wasn't until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964, and the huge support that evidence gave, that many scientists arrived at a consensus that something like the Big Bang must have happened.

 

What is a really sad state of affairs is when people fail to study things for themselves, and just listen to the opinions of others and take them as Gospel.

 

It's clear you think you know more than others.

 

Big Bang came into being instantly, with the discovery that suggested galaxies are flying away from each other. Primitive thinking came into action and said, 'hey .. an explosion.' But Hubble was a prime mover in U.S. cosmolgy, so everyone jumped onto his bandwagon .. a cosensus was formed. When new evidence refuted Big Bang, Inflation was added .. then Dark Energy .. the consensus rules despite contrary evidence. Fudge. Sweet fudge to Big Bang consensus. Cosmic Microwave Background fudge .. it can be explained in other ways.

 

It's clear you think you know more than others.

 

Big Bang theory came into being instantly, with the discovery that suggested galaxies are flying away from each other. Primitive thinking came into action and said, 'hey .. an explosion.' But Hubble was a prime mover in U.S. cosmolgy, so everyone jumped onto his bandwagon .. a cosensus was formed. When new evidence refuted Big Bang, Inflation was added .. then Dark Energy .. the consensus rules despite contrary evidence. Fudge. Sweet fudge to Big Bang consensus. Cosmic Microwave Background fudge .. what are the temperatures within voids? Why are voids? Why is a void said to be the biggest stucture in the universe (or was last time I checked)?

Edited October 23, 2011 by Aristarchus in Exile

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Big Bang came into being instantly, with the discovery that suggested galaxies are flying away from each other. Primitive thinking came into action and said, 'hey .. an explosion.' But Hubble was a prime mover in U.S. cosmolgy, so everyone jumped onto his bandwagon .. a cosensus was formed. When new evidence refuted Big Bang, Inflation was added .. then Dark Energy .. the consensus rules despite contrary evidence. Fudge. Sweet fudge to Big Bang consensus. Cosmic Microwave Background fudge .. it can be explained in other ways.

Are you suggesting it's a bad thing that scientists modify their models to account for new evidence?

 

If the model can be modified to explain all the available evidence, why is that bad?

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Are you suggesting it's a bad thing that scientists modify their models to account for new evidence?

 

If the model can be modified to explain all the available evidence, why is that bad?

 

Inflation was not evidence ... it was an idea injected to explain the evidence .. 'oh, things happened faster than we thought they did .. we'll just say things happened faster than we thought they did and call it inflation.' Fudge has to be added to carry the meal. Before Big Bang, Plasma Cosmology was the big contender. Really, if you look at the people popularity politics, and where the money for cosmology was coming from at the time Big Bang was proposed, it's clear that Hubble's connections were sources of money for research, so Plasma was tossed. Plasma must not have had any big financial backers, probably because it was pure science and not involved with toys like Mount Polamar. I'm not saying Plasma is the answer despite Plasma having huge evidences (ior it never would have been Number One). I am saying Plasma is so heavily reviled by many or most Big Bangers is because they are aware that the Bang is false, but can't go back to Plasma because of Pride and probably fear of losing friends, prestige, finances.