Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Consensus science

sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 4:27:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:

"I want to "talk about " the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. "

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it"s consensus, it isn"t science. If it"s science, it isn"t consensus. " ." " Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc". Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 7:04:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 4:27:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:

"I want to "talk about " the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. "

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it"s consensus, it isn"t science. If it"s science, it isn"t consensus. " ." " Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc". Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

I agree with the late Dr. Michael Crichton. The goal of science is get as close to certainty as possible. With that said, there are times when consensus is about as good as we can get based on available data, technology, etc. I do believe that at such times the limitations should be acknowledged.
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 6:59:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 4:27:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:

"I want to "talk about " the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. "

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it"s consensus, it isn"t science. If it"s science, it isn"t consensus. " ." " Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc". Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

Interesting how a medical doctor could lament against consensus science. I get his point, but the medical profession is run by consensus. The recommended path of treatment and diagnosis is largely created based upon consensus rather than repeatable verified results. IE: should women get mammogram at age 40?
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 8:56:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 7:04:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/5/2014 4:27:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:

"I want to "talk about " the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. "

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it"s consensus, it isn"t science. If it"s science, it isn"t consensus. " ." " Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc". Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

I agree with the late Dr. Michael Crichton. The goal of science is get as close to certainty as possible. With that said, there are times when consensus is about as good as we can get based on available data, technology, etc. I do believe that at such times the limitations should be acknowledged.

This is precisely why public policy should never be based on consensus.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 10:41:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 4:27:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:

"I want to "talk about " the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. "

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it"s consensus, it isn"t science. If it"s science, it isn"t consensus. " ." " Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc". Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

So one investigator happens to be right. How do we know that they are right? Their results have to be repeated by other groups who then agree that the original is right. Sounds fine, no need for consensus, its right or wrong. But what if they do not agree that the original result was correct because they argue with the methodology or the theory is unclear or there is evidence of systematic error. It now becomes a judgement as to what is right or wrong. Eventually a better experiment might be performed but in the absence of better evidence some parts of science are not clear.

E=mc^2 was a hugely controversial suggestion when it was first made by Einstein. It hardly causes a murmur now but if you read back to 1905 there were some vicious attacks made against it. It took further evidence to convince the majority of scientists to accept it. The same is true of many other theories in science. Boltzmann was hounded to commit suicide by those who would not accept the idea of atoms. Alfred Wegener suggested continental drift theory in 1912. In 1925 the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organised a symposium specifically in opposition to this theory. All these theories are fully accepted now but not until some decades after they were proposed.

Even a simple fact like the distance to the sun is still a consensus opinion. There has to be a consensus on what is meant by the distance to the sun since it is not a fixed value. There has to be a consensus on what is an appropriate technique to perform the measurement since you cannot just use a tape measure or bounce a laser of the surface. Finally there has to be consensus on the uncertainty of the measurement, because measurement is uncertain. 93 million miles is just an approximate value. The distance to the sun is still under review but the 2009 estimate gives it as 149 597 870 700"3 metres. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away, but that is what is implied when the value is used. We could then exam what is meant by 1 metre......

I would argue that science has always been governed by consensus, whether we like it or not. We can wish that it is about the search for truth but since we have no magic book to check the answers with we only have consensus to tell us when we hit on the truth.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 4:14:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 8:56:24 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/5/2014 7:04:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/5/2014 4:27:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:

"I want to "talk about " the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. "

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it"s consensus, it isn"t science. If it"s science, it isn"t consensus. " ." " Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc". Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

I agree with the late Dr. Michael Crichton. The goal of science is get as close to certainty as possible. With that said, there are times when consensus is about as good as we can get based on available data, technology, etc. I do believe that at such times the limitations should be acknowledged.

This is precisely why public policy should never be based on consensus.

Umm... in a democratic system, ALL public policy is based upon consensus. The late Dr. even says as much. The exception being: unless it is a policy that is ruled as going against a nation's constitution. Dictatorships are not based upon consensus however. Is that what you are proposing?

I should mention that I disagree with the late Dr. Crichton. As there is no real context or detailed argument posed in the excerpt, there's not much more I need to say as far as the premise of the thread goes.

I can see the underlying, unstated motive, however: this is really just about climate science and nothing else. Am I right?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 9:17:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 8:56:24 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/5/2014 7:04:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/5/2014 4:27:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:

"I want to "talk about " the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. "

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it"s consensus, it isn"t science. If it"s science, it isn"t consensus. " ." " Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc". Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

I agree with the late Dr. Michael Crichton. The goal of science is get as close to certainty as possible. With that said, there are times when consensus is about as good as we can get based on available data, technology, etc. I do believe that at such times the limitations should be acknowledged.

This is precisely why public policy should never be based on consensus.

"Should" being the key word. Sometimes the best choice is the one that's least bad, no matter how imperfect it happens to be.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 8:54:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 4:14:39 PM, Fly wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:56:24 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/5/2014 7:04:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/5/2014 4:27:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:

"I want to "talk about " the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. "

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it"s consensus, it isn"t science. If it"s science, it isn"t consensus. " ." " Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc". Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

I agree with the late Dr. Michael Crichton. The goal of science is get as close to certainty as possible. With that said, there are times when consensus is about as good as we can get based on available data, technology, etc. I do believe that at such times the limitations should be acknowledged.

This is precisely why public policy should never be based on consensus.

Umm... in a democratic system, ALL public policy is based upon consensus. The late Dr. even says as much. The exception being: unless it is a policy that is ruled as going against a nation's constitution. Dictatorships are not based upon consensus however. Is that what you are proposing?

I should mention that I disagree with the late Dr. Crichton. As there is no real context or detailed argument posed in the excerpt, there's not much more I need to say as far as the premise of the thread goes.

I can see the underlying, unstated motive, however: this is really just about climate science and nothing else. Am I right?

All of science, Science has let itself become reliant on ridiculous studies that have little or no scientific value and call it a consensus. Climate change, food you name it. And then to top it off it (Science engages in politics)
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 10:33:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 6:59:15 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

Interesting how a medical doctor could lament against consensus science. I get his point, but the medical profession is run by consensus. The recommended path of treatment and diagnosis is largely created based upon consensus rather than repeatable verified results. IE: should women get mammogram at age 40?

I think this is a subtly different thing: Medicine by statistics, and is another interesting discussion. I'd say medicine by direct measurement is better, but statistics can provide guidance when our understanding is limited. It's like, you're 99% less likely to get in an accident driving on the correct side of the road, but watching for something in front of you is even better.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 10:42:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:54:00 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/6/2014 4:14:39 PM, Fly wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:56:24 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/5/2014 7:04:31 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/5/2014 4:27:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:

"I want to "talk about " the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. "

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it"s consensus, it isn"t science. If it"s science, it isn"t consensus. " ." " Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc". Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

I agree with the late Dr. Michael Crichton. The goal of science is get as close to certainty as possible. With that said, there are times when consensus is about as good as we can get based on available data, technology, etc. I do believe that at such times the limitations should be acknowledged.

This is precisely why public policy should never be based on consensus.

Umm... in a democratic system, ALL public policy is based upon consensus. The late Dr. even says as much. The exception being: unless it is a policy that is ruled as going against a nation's constitution. Dictatorships are not based upon consensus however. Is that what you are proposing?

I should mention that I disagree with the late Dr. Crichton. As there is no real context or detailed argument posed in the excerpt, there's not much more I need to say as far as the premise of the thread goes.

I can see the underlying, unstated motive, however: this is really just about climate science and nothing else. Am I right?

All of science, Science has let itself become reliant on ridiculous studies that have little or no scientific value and call it a consensus. Climate change, food you name it. And then to top it off it (Science engages in politics)

I've only seen "Scientific Consensus" invoked in political situations where one side has very little science to corroberate their point of view, yet argue politically, not scientifically, about how the science is wrong.

Evolution, Climate Change, Anti-Vaccination, and a few others are primarily where this occurs. There is very, very, very little science that disagrees with any of those; but they are all highly politicized; and the scientific consensus is normally invoked to explain just that: that there is very, very little science, research and evidence that disagrees with it.
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 2:32:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 10:33:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/6/2014 6:59:15 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

Interesting how a medical doctor could lament against consensus science. I get his point, but the medical profession is run by consensus. The recommended path of treatment and diagnosis is largely created based upon consensus rather than repeatable verified results. IE: should women get mammogram at age 40?

I think this is a subtly different thing: Medicine by statistics, and is another interesting discussion. I'd say medicine by direct measurement is better, but statistics can provide guidance when our understanding is limited. It's like, you're 99% less likely to get in an accident driving on the correct side of the road, but watching for something in front of you is even better.

There is definitely some differences. Another is cost constraints needed to actually test individual's to validate diagnosis and that treatments will be effective. That however is how consensus science works. If one can not know for what ever reason the best guess for a lack of a better term is what gets used.

As an example, the consensus is that aspirin is a good daily treatment for people with heart attack risk. There are individual risks that may not make that true for many, including a genetic variance that does not allow the blood thinning action aspirin performs, or a higher risk for ulcers and other complications.

This isn't terribly different than global warming. We of course don't have the breath of data to confirm global warming and it will take time to identify individual factors to global warming other than CO2, but the evidence thus far is strong enough that there is consensus that CO2 is contributing to global warming.

Both instances require more knowledge. In the case of aspirin as a treatment the missing knowledge is how the individual reacts to the treatment. In global warming it is how much other variables contribute to global warming. It may be right for both to exist as consensus policies because of the constraints: aspirin - costs of evaluating effectiveness as a treatment for each individual, global warming - timing does not allow avoidance as an option if it is indeed a true.

Therefore consensus has a real and valid purpose in science. Note that is not to say that consensus is always right.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 3:20:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 2:32:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 10:33:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/6/2014 6:59:15 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

Interesting how a medical doctor could lament against consensus science. I get his point, but the medical profession is run by consensus. The recommended path of treatment and diagnosis is largely created based upon consensus rather than repeatable verified results. IE: should women get mammogram at age 40?

I think this is a subtly different thing: Medicine by statistics, and is another interesting discussion. I'd say medicine by direct measurement is better, but statistics can provide guidance when our understanding is limited. It's like, you're 99% less likely to get in an accident driving on the correct side of the road, but watching for something in front of you is even better.

There is definitely some differences. Another is cost constraints needed to actually test individual's to validate diagnosis and that treatments will be effective. That however is how consensus science works. If one can not know for what ever reason the best guess for a lack of a better term is what gets used.

As an example, the consensus is that aspirin is a good daily treatment for people with heart attack risk. There are individual risks that may not make that true for many, including a genetic variance that does not allow the blood thinning action aspirin performs, or a higher risk for ulcers and other complications.


I think you're conflating two different things - statistical analysis and consensus. Two totally different things.

This isn't terribly different than global warming. We of course don't have the breath of data to confirm global warming ...

Right, so you can't do statistics, it's a one-off kind of thing. So this is yet a third category here, known as "educated guess". Perfectly valid as long as you're clear that this is what you're doing.


Therefore consensus has a real and valid purpose in science. Note that is not to say that consensus is always right.

So this is interesting, real interesting, that some of you actually think this. I'm pretty sure you would have gotten very different responses just a generation ago. This kind of feels like a symptom of failing science education, in my opinion. I mean, substitute 'math' for science - would anyone say "consensus has a real and valid purpose in arithmetic"- ? Well, who knows, maybe people would, but I'm thinking people are still clear on the idea that math is objective, not subjective. It used to be that science was all about objective reality as well.
This space for rent.
slo1
Posts: 4,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 5:11:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 3:20:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/7/2014 2:32:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/7/2014 10:33:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/6/2014 6:59:15 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

Interesting how a medical doctor could lament against consensus science. I get his point, but the medical profession is run by consensus. The recommended path of treatment and diagnosis is largely created based upon consensus rather than repeatable verified results. IE: should women get mammogram at age 40?

I think this is a subtly different thing: Medicine by statistics, and is another interesting discussion. I'd say medicine by direct measurement is better, but statistics can provide guidance when our understanding is limited. It's like, you're 99% less likely to get in an accident driving on the correct side of the road, but watching for something in front of you is even better.

There is definitely some differences. Another is cost constraints needed to actually test individual's to validate diagnosis and that treatments will be effective. That however is how consensus science works. If one can not know for what ever reason the best guess for a lack of a better term is what gets used.

As an example, the consensus is that aspirin is a good daily treatment for people with heart attack risk. There are individual risks that may not make that true for many, including a genetic variance that does not allow the blood thinning action aspirin performs, or a higher risk for ulcers and other complications.


I think you're conflating two different things - statistical analysis and consensus. Two totally different things.

Of course they are are different. statistical analysis is used to analyze large data sets and to identify and/or confirm relationships. Consensus is when there is not enough information to make a scientific claim of fact, but the majority believe in a theory. Many diagnosis points in medicine are not proven to be effective, yet have a consensus agreement. Another example of that is psa monitoring for prostate problems in men. There is evidence that it causes too many false positives and cause all types of unnecessary procedures.

You can spin it all you want about stats, but the simple fact is that medical science does not know everything it needs to know about prostate cancer to give us guidelines which are based on scientific fact. The current recommendation from the AMA is consensus policy.

This isn't terribly different than global warming. We of course don't have the breath of data to confirm global warming ...

Right, so you can't do statistics, it's a one-off kind of thing. So this is yet a third category here, known as "educated guess". Perfectly valid as long as you're clear that this is what you're doing.

Are you kidding me? There are all types of stats in global warming science, including stats which validate the reliability and validity of the data that is collected. Again just like the AMA recommendation of psa monitoring and when to take action if it is high is just an "educated guess" too.


Therefore consensus has a real and valid purpose in science. Note that is not to say that consensus is always right.

So this is interesting, real interesting, that some of you actually think this. I'm pretty sure you would have gotten very different responses just a generation ago. This kind of feels like a symptom of failing science education, in my opinion. I mean, substitute 'math' for science - would anyone say "consensus has a real and valid purpose in arithmetic"- ? Well, who knows, maybe people would, but I'm thinking people are still clear on the idea that math is objective, not subjective. It used to be that science was all about objective reality as well.

Your comparison to mathematics is absurd. Comparing something with plenty of logical proofs to science topics which are in the investigation/development state is comparing apples to apples.

Well if you are denying the role of consensus, you should throw out much of medicine, especially the recommended standards put forth by the AMA. That means no more psa monitoring, aspirin regimes, etc because you have not objectively proven they are beneficial for you.

There is a role for consensus in science, in fact it has never not existed in the realm of science. The problem is when the consensus is unwilling to consider new information or alternative hypothesis.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 9:32:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think to understand the true meaning of consensus in science, first you need to realize that there is no conspiracy by scientists. This is the type of stuff people like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones believe. Consensus is just the generally held opinion supported by the data, this view can change with new data.

For example even the most adamant climate change "deniers" believe the earth is warming. Although some initially denied this, they changed their opinion based on the evidence. They just do not believe that man made anthropogenic warming is behind it. This means the consensus is that the Earth is warming among all climate change scientists and "deniers".

I used "deniers" as I think its a dumb name as they are not denying climate change they are denying the reasons that the majority hold.

If you want some good intro to understanding consensus read what slo1 has written in this forum.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:10:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 5:11:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
...

... the simple fact is that medical science does not know everything it needs to know about prostate cancer to give us guidelines which are based on scientific fact. The current recommendation from the AMA is consensus policy.

Right, so you're agreeing with Crichton - consensus is an alternative to science.


This isn't terribly different than global warming. We of course don't have the breath of data to confirm global warming ...

Right, so you can't do statistics, it's a one-off kind of thing. So this is yet a third category here, known as "educated guess". Perfectly valid as long as you're clear that this is what you're doing.

Are you kidding me? There are all types of stats in global warming science,

Yeah, figures this would parallel evo, where quantity of data is mistaken for science. The point is, you can't do statistics on the outcomes on our planet, the way you can do stats in a drug trial. We only have one earth.


Well if you are denying the role of consensus, you should throw out much of medicine, especially the recommended standards put forth by the AMA. That means no more psa monitoring, aspirin regimes, etc because you have not objectively proven they are beneficial for you.


No, not at all. It just means I recognize the recommendations for what they are. I've lived long enough to see medicine do numerous 180s on things like this, so I'm not afraid to mix my common sense with the recommendations.

There is a role for consensus in science, in fact it has never not existed in the realm of science. The problem is when the consensus is unwilling to consider new information or alternative hypothesis.

Well, consensus exists in the science community because we are humans and we crave the confirmation of other humans. Jealousy and greed and altruism also exist in the science community because we are humans. But none of them ARE science, is Crichton's point, I think.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 7:17:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 4:27:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
...

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .


Just thought it should be bumped, it's so good.

And I think this is not taught any more, I think we have evidence of it right here. We are in the twilight of the golden age of science. We're in the age of technology now.
This space for rent.