Scientific Knowledge has Nothing to do with Consensus
by Xolin
The current climate debate fails to mention one significant factor: Scientific knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. The origin of today's so-called "scientific consensus" on climate change is based on a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 which showed that none disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.Scientific consensus, as used by political and other groups to form the basis for changes in business, society and the law is, then, merely a general collection of opinions that do not question anthropogenic global warming. Yet, on an individual level, quite the reverse occurs. The peer review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process at all; instead, referees submit their opinions individually and there is no concerted effort made to reach a group opinion. Scientific consensus has been used as a means of protecting the accepted worldview for centuries – look to the examples of Galileo, continental drift, and the much more recent Helicobacter controversy, for a start – and is a political construct, not a scientific one. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof goes against all tenets of empirical science. The claim of a consensus in scientific opinion is simply a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. The true test of science – making a theory more robust by stridently attempting to disprove it with experiments, rather than attempting to "prove" it with computer simulations – has fallen by the wayside through socio-political pressure, it would seem.
Are you sure you want to report this comment as offensive?
by Xolin
The current climate debate fails to mention one significant factor: Scientific knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. The origin of today's so-called "scientific consensus" on climate change is based on a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 which showed that none disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.Scientific consensus, as used by political and other groups to form the basis for changes in business, society and the law is, then, merely a general collection of opinions that do not question anthropogenic global warming. Yet, on an individual level, quite the reverse occurs. The peer review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process at all; instead, referees submit their opinions individually and there is no concerted effort made to reach a group opinion. Scientific consensus has been used as a means of protecting the accepted worldview for centuries – look to the examples of Galileo, continental drift, and the much more recent Helicobacter controversy, for a start – and is a political construct, not a scientific one. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof goes against all tenets of empirical science. The claim of a consensus in scientific opinion is simply a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. The true test of science – making a theory more robust by stridently attempting to disprove it with experiments, rather than attempting to "prove" it with computer simulations – has fallen by the wayside through socio-political pressure, it would seem.
Are you sure you want to report this comment as offensive?
