When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

The American ^ | March 16, 2010 | Jay Richards

[Chaguito]

Answer: Never

The frustrating part of being a real scientist is that no matter how well your experiments seem to support your hypothesis or theory, someone out in the audience is already pushing experiments that will demonstrate its inadequacy. That’s real science.

[Chaguito]

When to doubt a scientific consensus: Always

Answered the wrong question above.

[Doogle]

...whenever they use the word consensus

[babygene]

“Answer: Never”

Did you mean to say always? Always would be my answer...

[Chaguito]

Yes, mind-cramp on my part. See my correction just below my ill-advised post.

[Arm_Bears]

Science is not consensus, and consensus is not science.

(Tortured musings of a conservative Ph.D.)

[TXnMA]

Actually your #2 reminds me of why I "do" science -- and love it.

I didn't object so much to the "consensus" claims of a small group of grant-baited "scientists". Dangle enough money, and you can always lure a batch of humans to climb onto your wagon.

Their problem is that they don't have the honesty to admit that they are but a tiny subset of the set of ALL scientists. The fleas don't speak for the dog!

But, where they really blew it was when they called their 'science' "settled".

As illustratged by your #2, science is never "settled"!!!

That is what makes science so much fun! There is always better data to be acquired and new discoveries to be made. When science is "settled", I will give up being a scientist!

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam Me to Planet Gore !

[Chaguito]

Exactly, and I agree with you 100%. I think that my word “frustration” reflects the fact that I didn’t want to stay in academia. I wanted some sort of “settled” product to come out of my work. So I went into industrial chemistry.

In any case I still like sitting in on my chem prof brother’s student seminars to remind me of how glad I was to make the decision.

[norwaypinesavage]

Good catch. This presents a very good set of objective arguments to deal with warming zealots.

[Joe 6-pack]

Looks like our other conversation gave birth to a thread of its own!

[TXnMA]

When I went back for a few courses, and they literally begged me to lecture on the technology of products already in production, (I was on ed. leave from Jack Kilby's semiconductor R&D labs) I knew that I could never stomach being stuck in academia...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Good catch. This presents a very good set of objective arguments to deal with warming zealots.

Agreed; I think it's excellent. Bookmarking.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[allmendream]

While I am appalled at Nature circling the wagons and choosing the poorly defendable climate “science” hill to fight on, I do take comfort in the fact that these climate “scientists” knew that they had to “redefine the peer review process” in order for their “consensus” to survive.

Climate is, as the author suggests, not as applicable to the scientific method as many other things. For one thing it is impossible to do a controlled experiment (the bedrock of science), there being of course only ONE Earth.

[PGalt]

I propose this checklist as a rough-and-ready list of signs for when to consider doubting a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject.

(13) When the frontman for the consensus of scientists is a POS politician named Al "No Controlling Legal Authority", "HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS" Gore. (Sometimes ad hominen attacks are necessary and true, otherwise...who will protect us from our protectors?)

Thanks for the ping, c_I_c; post, neverdem. OUTSTANDING article by Jay Richards.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks for the ping. Now if we could just get the Coming Ice Age/AGW/The Sky is Falling cheerleaders in the Ministry of Information to apply it. Doubtful it would even make a chink in the armor though.

[ForGod'sSake]

Have you been pinged to this one???

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping.