One thing I hear over and over again that irks me to no end is the word "consensus" relating to global warming science. YOU CAN NOT HAVE CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE!!! Science is not open to votes and science is not based on majority rules. Science is based on facts. When I hear the word "consensus" (like I did over and over again during Al Gore's speech to the U.S. House Committee today) it tells me that the accompanying argument is weak and can not stand on its own.
Michael Crichton had this to say:
"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. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
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. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I'm not sure about the implications of this. Perhaps you are correct that you cannot have consensus in science, but can you have consensus on the facts upon which science is based?
For example, some elemental theorists believe in the string theory, some aren't convinced. Even the question of what is a fact is not a settled fact in this area of science. Is string theory then not science? As opposed to the theory of gravity, which is based on facts that nobody disputes?
Consensus implies opinion and thus belief. Science is about proving a hypothesis true or false. The more times it is proven to be true, the more concrete the theory. This is all based on facts obtained through experimentation. There is no belief in science. There is only degree of certainty.
Well put John.
The dictionary defines consensus as:
1. majority of opinion.
There is no basis of fact needed for consensus, only majority of "opinion". Science should be based solely on facts, derived from proving a hypothesis true or false, not on majority opinion.
At this stage, global warming is simply a theory that has yet to be proven correct (but has hard evidence proving incorrect). Until there is proof that the hypothesis is correct then there is no scientific basis for global warming.
Global warming has been proven relative to recent years data. The question is why and what will happen nexg.
Crichton’s argument is that somehow science transcends all of the politics, prejudice, and bias of the world in which it’s conducted. “Facts” are just consensus opinion.
Facts are not a consensus of opinion. They are a consensus of substantiated opinion. That is a big difference. Newton's laws of motion have been proven repeatedly by millions of students over the years. His theories are now law within the macro world.
The earth warmed by an average of 0.7 degrees Celcius in the past 100 years. There have been no proof as to why. There is a theory that greenhouse gases caused it, but the facts do not fit that hypothesis. (Much of the warming this century was before the green house gas emissions skyrocketed.) Despite there being proof against the anthropogenic global warming theory, people like Gore still clamour against carbon dioxide. It makes no sense. Their position is simply a belief.
Dre...
"“Facts” are just consensus opinion." - wrong!
In the past consensus opinion was that the world is flat, which is definitely not a fact.
Consensus opinion in Salem was that many of the women were witches that needed to be burned at the stake, turned out not to be fact.
Consensus opinion was that the sun revolved around the earth, not fact.
There are many other examples of consensus opinion that was incorrect and therefore is not fact. Simply because the majority believes something to be true does not make it true.
Yeah, well I think those women were witches and I’d like to see you prove me wrong without evoking consensus opinion.
Dre...
" Yeah, well I think those women were witches and I’d like to see you prove me wrong without evoking consensus opinion."
OK then let's say they were witches. What about the other arguments? You have no way to defend them because they are nonsense. But at the time they were held to be absolute truth. Sounds like global warming today.
The sun obviously revolves around the earth. That’s a fact.
Dre...
You appear to be the type of person that holds on to beliefs even after they have been proven incorrect. This would explain why you insist on holding on to the belief in human induced GW.
It all makes sense now!
The reason Gore has to rely on this term "consensus" is because the science is not complete. There just isn't conclusive evidence of human carbon emissions causing global warming. Right now it is just a hypothesis that some scientists are behind. Unfortunately this hypothesis is now starting to have a big impact on government policy and that is particularly upsetting. How many billions of dollars are going to be rerouted from more important issues while we wait for Gore's scientists to discover that their hypothesis is wrong?
biebs, you accused dre of being a "person who holds on to beliefs even after they have been proven incorrect." there may or may not be substantial evidence for global warming, but there may or may not be substantial evidence for it NOT occuring either. people aren't perfect; no scientist is going to have everything absolutely right in such a colossal issue like global warming. people who believe global warming is real are backed up by some science and, granted, consensus agreement. your view of global warming being false is also backed up by some science AND (incredibly) consensus agreement. while you have a point with consensus science, your side is just as guilty of it as the other is.
Post a Comment