Tips for Denying Scientific Consensus

[Chronos]

Facts are oblivious to beliefs. Science is about facts. Consensus is about politics.

 

[Astronuc]

I think the term 'scientific consensus' refers to a general agreement among the portion of the scientific community who have studied a particular topic. For example, the 'Standard Model' is a general understanding, but that's not so say it is a finished piece of work.

Clearly there are cases/examples where some of the body of knowledge or understanding is misrepresented by those outside the scientific community. And we also see examples of scientific misconduct or fraud, which undermines the credibility of the scientific community, at least in the minds of the general public. The lack or loss of trust is harmful.


The scientific process is, or should be, about the pursuit of truth (facts).

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/17/what_do_we_mean_by_scientific_truth_106273.html

Calling something a “scientific truth” is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it carries a kind of epistemic (how we know) credibility, a quality assurance that a truth has been arrived at in an understandable and verifiable way.

On the other, it seems to suggest science provides one of many possible categories of truth, all of which must be equal or, at least, non-comparable. Simply put, if there’s a “scientific truth” there must be other truths out there. Right?

. . . .

I think most of us tend to the former, that there is some 'truth' that has been developed from a rigorous investigation of facts/observations/experiments that are repeatable and verifiable.

 

[Pythagorean]

Even the peer review process is a type of consensus; otherwise people (even scientists) rationalize things to themselves. you still need the broader perspective and context of the rest of the scientific community.

 

[Astronuc]

Even the peer review process is a type of consensus; otherwise people (even scientists) rationalize things to themselves. you still need the broader perspective and context of the rest of the scientific community.

Well hopefully, one's peers challenge one, and one is objective, or sensible enough not to rationlize something that is incorrect.

What constitutes the rest of the scientific community? Clearly there would be concerns about the opinion of a scientist outside of the area of one's research - or at least on certain aspects - although one's peers in other areas might provide some independent assessment of one's methods or approach.

 

[Pythagorean]

Experts in similar research. Good editors usually make an attempt at matching the right experts up for peer review.

Rationalizing, omissions, oversights. We're all susceptible. Peer review is mostly about catching those innocent errors, not screening for crackpots. That's why community is important: not to establish us vs. them group but to check each other constructively.

 

[atyy]

There's always a necessary tension between the two points of view. Even in mathematics - can there be true rigour? No, because just to define ZFC requires an undefined, intuitive meta-language. Presumably that meta-language was learned by an individual from a community. Nonetheless there is also the point of view that a proof is right or wrong regardless of what the community thinks.

http://www.math.wisc.edu/~miller/old/m771-10/kunen770.pdf (p31)
"Each axiom of ZFC other than Comprehension and Replacement forms (an abbeviation of) one sentence in the language of set theory. But the Comprehension Axiom is a rule in the metatheory for producing axioms; that is whenever you replace the ϕ in the Comprehension Scheme in Section I.2 by a logical formula, you get an axiom of ZFC; so really ZFC is an infinite list of axioms. Likewise, the Replacement Axiom is really an infinite scheme."

 

[lendav_rott]

Tom Magliozzi has a PhD and he can tell you how to fix your car, because well ... he's funny and has his own radio show.

So, yes, you can graduate from MIT (as both brothers did) and wind up being an auto mechanic.

http://www.cartalk.com/content/tom-and-rays-bios-photos-0 auto biography page.

Very well, I'll give him a ring to check my suspension, but can I use this one example to deduce that all people who have a PhD and are funny while on the air are competent enough to fix cars?

 

[Czcibor]

One more advice, especially for the brighter ones:

Got into fight not with real scientists but with people with political/business agenda which accidentally is in some points similar to the consensus.

Ideas:
-Vaccines - quarrel with lobbies of vaccine companies that were good at lobbying at gov to sell tones of flue vaccines during alleged epidemics.

In each case present victory in such narrow issue with as debunking whole theory. Your adversary would work in your favour by not saying that his standing position was not specially science based.