Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: h_ who wrote (33970)	2/17/2025 2:29:00 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37435

"Consensus of science" is an oxymoron. Let me help you H You’ll most likely have seen instances where the term “scientific consensus” has been misused or misunderstood. People for example often confuse it with appeals to popular opinion or think it is the result of discussions or determined by a vote or just finding a compromise. Because of this, opinion polls - even if predominated by unqualified individuals - are used to argue that no scientific consensus exists for a particular topic even if it clearly does. It’s important to note that a scientific consensus is not proof for a scientific theory but that it’s the result of converging lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. It is therefore not a part of the scientific method but is actually a consequence of it. When people argue against a scientific consensus, they are usually misunderstanding the term or are deliberately abusing the ambiguity of the term consensus. A scientific consensus is not infallible but nonetheless represents the best knowledge available on a given scientific topic at a given time. In addition, it provides the foundation for new knowledge by generating follow-up questions for scientists to explore. Defining Scientific Consensus: A “consensus” in everyday usage typically refers to a popular opinion which doesn’t need to be based on actual knowledge or evidence. By contrast, a “scientific consensus” needs to be based on evidence and converging lines of existing evidence are a prerequisite, distinguishing a knowledge-based scientific consensus from a simple agreement. To quote John Reisman, “Science is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. It is evidence that does the dictating.” Because of that, a few disagreeing contrarians on the fringe don’t really matter unless and until they can show evidence of comparable weight which explains the existing data and observations better. The weight of evidence is what matters. You need to have a convergence of many independent lines of high quality evidence leading the vast majority of active - i.e. publishing - scientists in a given field to come to the same or complimentary conclusions before you can refer to a consensus in science. Given the combative nature of science, it’s highly unlikely, that any scientist sets out to become part of a consensus. However, many will discover that their research results led them to become one piece of the puzzle making up the overall consensus. Reaching a scientific consensus is not straightforward, will vary by field and might well resemble a “long, long winding road” with quite a few dead ends and detours thrown in along the way. An absolute 100% unamity among scientists in a specific field is neither likely nor a prerequisite for a scientific consensus as long as there’s a consilience of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. Outlier viewpoints within the scientific community are therefore quite normal and there’s usually nothing nefarious going on. No need to thank me.