Harold Squared Posted June 30, 2015 Author Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Evidence is separate from and prior to consensus. Peer pressure has its evolutionary origin and function, but it does not belong in science so much as in advertising, aka propaganda. So why is consensus required to support some scientific theories and not others if the wealth of EVIDENCE is so overwhelming? Of course, no particular example comes to mind immediately. You know, when "4 out of 5 dentists (are) surveyed", I always wonder what the 5th dentist had to say and why. I guess we'll never know... Edited June 30, 2015 by Harold Squared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Consensus isn't needed to support the science of climate change. Your premise is nonsensical on its face. Consensus has merely formed as a result of the mountains of evidence being so self-evidently consistent and obvious to all but a painfully stupid and/or ideologically-driven willfully ignorant few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Squared Posted June 30, 2015 Author Share Posted June 30, 2015 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). Naturally we are. But scientists are human and subject to political pressures, the drive to conform, etc. as is everyone else. It can be a powerful force in its own right. On the other hand, there are those who reflexively reject the consensus view without further scrutiny and out of habit. These people are rare but you have probably met a few in your day. Thanks to all for a stimulating discussion so far. Consensus isn't needed to support the science of climate change. Your premise is nonsensical on its face. Consensus has merely formed as a result of the mountains of evidence being so self-evidently consistent and obvious to all but a painfully stupid and/or ideologically-driven willfully ignorant few. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE THAT THIS IS NOT ANOTHER AGW THREAD, SIR. Kindly take notice and remain civil if you are able. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Hmm. Odd that I would be confused given that nearly 100% of the posts you make in this community involve AGW denial. You have my apologies if your intentions are sincere, but let's be honest, Harold... We both know they're not. Regardless of current circumstance, please do carry on. My core point remains unchallenged, namely that scientific consensus is a result of evidence, not a replacement of it or something that happens in its stead as you are here now suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 So why is consensus required to support some scientific theories and not others if the wealth of EVIDENCE is so overwhelming? Of course, no particular example comes to mind immediately. Well, then, perhaps the premise is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Evidence is separate from and prior to consensus. Peer pressure has its evolutionary origin and function, but it does not belong in science so much as in advertising, aka propaganda. No one will disagree with that. So why is consensus required to support some scientific theories and not others if the wealth of EVIDENCE is so overwhelming? It isn't. Of course, no particular example comes to mind immediately. Because there are no such examples. On the other hand, there are those who reflexively reject the consensus view without further scrutiny and out of habit. These people are rare but you have probably met a few in your day. Not rare on science forums. (I seem to be talking to one now.) There are too many who reject relativity, quantum theory and many other well established scientific theories for no good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Not rare on science forums. (I seem to be talking to one now.) There are too many who reject relativity, quantum theory and many other well established scientific theories for no good reason. Not according to them, though, but inevitably they don't understand the issues nearly as well as they think they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 ^Yep. Classic Dunning-Kruger Effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now