On Consensus

[Harold Squared]

"There is no place in science for 'toeing the line' with some 'doctrine' or 'consensus'. The best science is always the one that breaks the consensus. This is why we celebrate Einstein and Boltzmann today, for example. In their day, both stood up against the prevailing 'consensus'. Yet, today we know there is no 'ether'- Einstein was right, Kelvin was wrong. And, yes, thermodynamics is derivable from the kinetic theory of matter and...atoms do exist- Boltzmann was right too."

-Zdzislaw Meglicki

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Do you have a point you wish to discuss here? If so, please elaborate.

[TheDivineFool]

Well, logically speaking ''consensus'' is a strange creature.

 

Any book on critical thinking will say three things:

 

1. When evaluating the assertions of an expert, one must check for ''consensus'' among the experts. The usual advice being matters on which there's a consensus are more likely to be true. Where consensus lacks, one should doubt veracity.

 

2. Fallacy of appeal to majority. Just because many people believe in x, it doesn't imply that x is true.

 

3. When evaluating a scientific hypothesis, coherence is a key criteria i.e. a hypothesis must agree with established scientific ''facts'' and theories.

 

One could say Einstein failed in 1 and 3 but definitely established the truth of 2.

 

As to what constitutes best science, I think a science that is ever critical of itself is the best science. Good science must be willing to adapt to new evidence; rather than claim to know the truth, it must convey a spirit of rational inquiry.

[imatfaal]

Unsupportable view in the face of empirical evidence [latex]\neq[/latex] Unrivalled insight which changed physics.

 

We do not laud Einstein because he stood up against the consensus (read the man's work and see how generous he was in praising the work of those that lead to his - JCM is held in particularly high esteem) - we lionise Einstein so because he was right.

[swansont]

That there is no ether is the current consensus. That's because of the evidence, not because people are toeing the line.

[Strange]

"There is no place in science for 'toeing the line' with some 'doctrine' or 'consensus'. The best science is always the one that breaks the consensus.

 

It depends why people stand up against the consensus. Just doing it out of a sense of perversity is not good science. Doing it based on evidence is.

 

 

Yet, today we know there is no 'ether'- Einstein was right

 

The thing is, there never was any evidence or reason to think there was an aether - other than "common sense". So as soon as it was shown that (a) there was no need for it and (b) there was no evidence for it then the ideas was abandoned.

 

Oddly, the few diehard cranks who insist there is an aether (for no obvious reason) use the same "battling against the consensus" argument to say they should be taken seriously.

 

And when it came to some aspects of quantum theory, Einstein was wrong.

 

In the end, consensus is result of science, not the reason to accept a particular theory.

[Phi for All]

I don't think anyone who doesn't know mainstream science should get to criticize it, in this way. Meglicki holds PhDs in physics and electrical engineering, he already knows mainstream science, he knows when consensus makes sense, and when it's hampering progress.

 

I think it's disingenuous to use his argument as a blanket statement that consensus is always bad. I doubt seriously that Meglicki would stick by his statement if it was used as an argument to support the ideas in many of our speculative threads. He certainly wouldn't approved of empty, unsupported, hand-waving insistence that an idea is viable and right, the concept that seems to have spawned this latest unspecific attack thread on mainstream science.

[overtone]

A proper or legitimate scientific consensus would be about what the evidence, argument, or proof, implied. It is not the evidence, argument, or proof, itself.

 

As long as one does not confuse "consensus" with "evidence", "argument", "proof", or the like, there's nothing wrong with giving it the benefit of the doubt, taking it seriously.

 

And nothing inherently right or admirable about "standing up to the consensus". To evaluate a consensus, one compares it with the evidence, argument, or proof it is about. Without that comparison, conflicts with a consensus are just noise.

 

So are agreements.

 

Humans do tend to confuse consensus with evidence, argument, or even proof, of course.

[StringJunky]

... - we lionise Einstein so because he was right.

...and because he was a good sport when he wasn't.

[Harold Squared]

I don't think anyone who doesn't know mainstream science should get to criticize it, in this way. Meglicki holds PhDs in physics and electrical engineering, he already knows mainstream science, he knows when consensus makes sense, and when it's hampering progress.

 

I think it's disingenuous to use his argument as a blanket statement that consensus is always bad. I doubt seriously that Meglicki would stick by his statement if it was used as an argument to support the ideas in many of our speculative threads. He certainly wouldn't approved of empty, unsupported, hand-waving insistence that an idea is viable and right, the concept that seems to have spawned this latest unspecific attack thread on mainstream science.

Then you might be surprised at how I learned of the good doctor and where I found his words. In any case, neither the doctor nor dear old Uncle Harold would be idiot enough to insist consensus is always wrong, any more than it is always based on sufficient and correct evidence, e.g. witch hunts and the like.

 

Another example if you prefer: Executive Order 9066. Unchallenged at the time, roundly condemned as an egregious and racist violation of American civil rights today.

[overtone]

A particular executive order and consensus opinion in general thrown into the same box? That box is going to be hard to label.

[swansont]

Executive order? Consensus? I do not think this word means what you think it means.

[tar]

swansont,

 

I don't think Harold Squared was saying that an executive order is representative of consensus. I think he was concentrating on the fact that it was unchallenged at the time. That is, the consensus was, at the time, that it was perfectly OK for it to stand as an unchallenged order. Now it is considered, by consensus, to be, in a nearly unanimous consensus type of way, "roundly condemned as an egregious and racist violation of American civil rights today".

 

What the order said, and whether you agreed with it then or whether you agree with it now is not the point. The point was that consensus opinion changed. Which would indicate that if consensus opinion is right now, it was wrong then. Or if consensus opinion was right then, it is wrong now.

 

Regards, TAR

Harold Squared,

 

Consider a football play were the guy scores and the crowd goes crazy, but instant replay shows his foot was out of bounds when he caught the ball.

 

Consensus opinion was that he scored. But as soon as the evidence was presented, consensus opinion was, that he did not.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 17, 2015 by tar

[Strange]

I don't think Harold Squared was saying that an executive order is representative of consensus. I think he was concentrating on the fact that it was unchallenged at the time. That is, the consensus was, at the time, that it was perfectly OK for it to stand as an unchallenged order. Now it is considered, by consensus, to be, in a nearly unanimous consensus type of way, "roundly condemned as an egregious and racist violation of American civil rights today".

 

Which simply reinforces that, even outside of science, the consensus can change (in the face of evidence, or whatever). In science it just happens to be a lot easier to change the consensus than in, say, politics.

[tar]

Strange,

 

I completely agree with you, and as the whole crowd instantly accepts what the instant replay evidence shows, so does mainstream science accept vetted evidence.

 

The crowd knows football and its rules.

 

Mainstream science knows nature and its rules.

 

As soon as the evidence is presented, the consensus changes to accomadate the new evidence.

 

On the speculation section of this board, when people challenge mainstream consensus, the first question that is always asked of them, is "what is your evidence" of this being the case?

 

When the poster, instead of describing the evidence, claims to be a misunderstood Einstein, and impugns the scientific community for "ignoring the great answer to everything that would become clear if scientists would drop what they are doing, and investigate this wonderful new idea," the response from the board is usually an understandable, "sigh".

 

A "consensus" sigh, I might add.

 

Regards, TAR

[Harold Squared]

swansont,

 

I don't think Harold Squared was saying that an executive order is representative of consensus. I think he was concentrating on the fact that it was unchallenged at the time. That is, the consensus was, at the time, that it was perfectly OK for it to stand as an unchallenged order. Now it is considered, by consensus, to be, in a nearly unanimous consensus type of way, "roundly condemned as an egregious and racist violation of American civil rights today".

 

What the order said, and whether you agreed with it then or whether you agree with it now is not the point. The point was that consensus opinion changed. Which would indicate that if consensus opinion is right now, it was wrong then. Or if consensus opinion was right then, it is wrong now.

 

Regards, TAR

Harold Squared,

 

Consider a football play were the guy scores and the crowd goes crazy, but instant replay shows his foot was out of bounds when he caught the ball.

 

Consensus opinion was that he scored. But as soon as the evidence was presented, consensus opinion was, that he did not.

 

Regards, TAR

Thank you for your most helpful clarification and to all participants for their gratifying interest.

Does Harold compare himself to Boltzmann or the great Einstein? No.

 

The quote supplied merely points out that upsetting the consensus is typical of great advancements in our understanding of the facts presented to us by observations.

 

No more, no less. The good doctor is unaware of Harold and unless I am mistaken intends to suggest exactly what he said.

Other examples of complete unanimity being incorrect based on the best available evidence and considerably higher stakes, e.g., exculpatory DNA evidence clearing the names of convicted murderers.

 

Last I noticed, there were over one hundred such cases on record.

 

It would behoove us to weigh ALL AVAILABLE evidence, most carefully, and without prior prejudice to the degree we are able.

[overtone]

 

 

I think he was concentrating on the fact that it was unchallenged at the time. That is, the consensus was, at the time, that it was perfectly OK for it to stand as an unchallenged order. Now it is considered, by consensus, to be, in a nearly unanimous consensus type of way, "roundly condemned as an egregious and racist violation of American civil rights today".

By which confusion he ends up with "not a good idea to challenge executive orders in wartime" as a consensus somehow being completely reversed by "that one was a bad one" after the war ended.

 

And the entire matter of informed vs uninformed, when evaluating a consensus, simply ignored.

 

He's setting up a comparison between a consensus of climatologists and oceanographers and geologists and paleontologists and biologists that the CO2 boost is trapping heat in the biosphere and changing the climate, and a consensus of ordinary citizens who know nothing about the situation that a wartime government order interning some people they don't know is probably justified.

 

Following that line of argument, we can support a rejection of any scientific consensus on any matter by pointing to the reversals of consensus opinion on where babies come from as a group of four year olds becomes a group of 24 year olds.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Well, I see your point, and I would not want to appear to support Harold Squared's argument, if he is trying to argue that main stream science's consensus needs to be disrupted in order to "get it right".

 

But it appears he is softening his argument, and allowing that it is the evidence that forms new consensus, not the insistence of a holder of an unsupported idea that it should be accepted because it is counter consensus.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

The quote supplied merely points out that upsetting the consensus is typical of great advancements in our understanding of the facts presented to us by observations.

 

This is what Khun called a "paradigm shift"; this resistance and then acceptance of new ideas, when there is sufficient ideas, is an essential part of how science works.

 

 

It would behoove us to weigh ALL AVAILABLE evidence, most carefully, and without prior prejudice to the degree we are able.

 

Ironic from someone who deliberately chooses to dismiss most of the evidence on a particular subject.

[CharonY]

A scientific consensus is not a rigid body of knowledge as some may seem to think. Rather a consensus is essentially the current model that integrates existing knowledge and data in the best way.

Some are very well established, and that is because it is supported by a vast number of independent lines of research and resulting data that happens to agree with the consensus. Note that this is not research aimed at confirming a consensus, as that would, by definition not lead to new insights. Rather, it could be something that tests a particular prediction based on the model or which uses that model as a foundation for further studies.

 

There are also areas where the consensus is weak in which many utilize a model with the knowledge that it is likely incomplete (or even wrong) but in absence of further data there is nothing better yet. In these cases even a single, well-executed study can overturn the existing consensus.

 

In actual science something new takes some time to get traction, and rightfully so, because follow-ups take time and it is rare that a study can present something utterly convincing to shatter a well-established paradigm. For the weaker paradigms there are plenty of examples of rapid revisions (especially in the area of molecular biology).

 

The problem that laymen often have is that they do not have a grasp on the existing foundations that make up a given model or paradigm and try to tackle things intuitively rather than using or creating evidence and data. For that, no weighing is possible as it simply does not stack up to even the weakest studies.

[swansont]

swansont,

 

I don't think Harold Squared was saying that an executive order is representative of consensus. I think he was concentrating on the fact that it was unchallenged at the time. That is, the consensus was, at the time, that it was perfectly OK for it to stand as an unchallenged order. Now it is considered, by consensus, to be, in a nearly unanimous consensus type of way, "roundly condemned as an egregious and racist violation of American civil rights today".

 

What the order said, and whether you agreed with it then or whether you agree with it now is not the point. The point was that consensus opinion changed. Which would indicate that if consensus opinion is right now, it was wrong then. Or if consensus opinion was right then, it is wrong now.

 

 

Moot, really. Political consensus and scientific consensus are two different beasts. This sounds a lot like the equivocation when people argue about "belief" and conflate two different definitions of the word.

[waitforufo]

Gee, I always thought that consensus in science had something to do with an agreement among scientists that measured data from observation, and when possible experiment, matched that of a hypothesis.

 

So lets have a test.

 

 

Does the data match the observation? Can we reach a consensus?

Edited June 21, 2015 by waitforufo

[Phi for All]

Does the data match the observation? Can we reach a consensus?

 

!

Moderator Note

For anyone else who hasn't been following, this is NOT an AGW thread, this is a thread about CONSENSUS. It's a chance to discuss the politics of consensus. Please don't hijack this discussion.

 

If you have a problem with this modnote, report it but don't discuss it here.

[Harold Squared]

 

This is what Khun called a "paradigm shift"; this resistance and then acceptance of new ideas, when there is sufficient ideas, is an essential part of how science works.

 

 

Ironic from someone who deliberately chooses to dismiss most of the evidence on a particular subject.

I am interested more in the phenomenon of consensus generally, in the political sense, why are you trying to turn this into another AGW specific thread?

 

!

Moderator Note

For anyone else who hasn't been following, this is NOT an AGW thread, this is a thread about CONSENSUS. It's a chance to discuss the politics of consensus. Please don't hijack this discussion.

 

If you have a problem with this modnote, report it but don't discuss it here.

Thank you. I wish I had read all the way to your post before replying.

At various times the consensus view favored burning witches, heretics, etc. Dueling died out relatively recently, a holdover from trial by combat, a most traditional and nasty sort of jurisprudence. It was generally supported by the consensus of the day.

 

Custom and culture often carry more weight than formal law. Often it seems to me that custom dictates whether the law is enforced or not and to what degree.

 

Neither consensus nor law are under any obligation to be consistent, and when the pressure is on, both bow to expedience in practice.

 

Moot, really. Political consensus and scientific consensus are two different beasts. This sounds a lot like the equivocation when people argue about "belief" and conflate two different definitions of the word.

At the root of all are certain beliefs considered as axiomatic. And considering our limitations there is much we do not yet and indeed may never know with certainty. Science seeks to change this, of course. The gold standard of science is reproducible results, of course, but this is not always feasible.

[Strange]

I am interested more in the phenomenon of consensus generally, in the political sense, why are you trying to turn this into another AGW specific thread?

 

Sorry, I must have confused by your opening statement ("There is no place in science for 'toeing the line' with some 'doctrine' or 'consensus'"). I assumed your were talking about science not politics.

 

I never mentioned AGW; I was commenting on the importance of evidence. I assume we agree about that (in principle, at least).