3 ms·

Also, consensus science is BS. If it's science, there does not need to be any consensus for something to be true. It's not like science is evaluated democratica

Also, consensus science is BS. If it's science, there does not need to be any consensus for something to be true. It's not like science is evaluated democratically. Unless, of course, the science says something nobody likes to admit is true.

umvi 6y ago
Well what if the science is still developing and is extremely complex and the predictive models require petabytes of data and supercomputers and expert interpretation? Like, say, with climate change. Doesn't seem like there's an easy way for an individual scientist to take in all that info and make accurate predictions. Hence groups of scientists reach a "consensus" of what the current best interpretation of the complexity is. The consensus might still be wrong, but at least it signals "all the experts are currently thinking the data means X, Y, Z"
- lmm 6y ago
  > Well what if the science is still developing and is extremely complex and the predictive models require petabytes of data and supercomputers and expert interpretation? Then the public and policymakers should be aware that there isn't a consensus. If there are question marks about a lot of points of detail, then we can't just average everyone and then be confident in the result of that.
renewiltord 6y ago
The scientific consensus is so that the guy who doesn't want to know the details can see what most experts believe. That's a perfectly reasonable way to develop knowledge if you weight it correctly. It's like when I want a TV, I want it to be big enough and show a nice enough picture. I just go to Wirecutter. I don't go buy and return a bunch of TVs till I'm content. That's because I've only got 80 years on this Earth. No one who uses first principles experiments for anything is capable of forming higher-level hypotheses. Heck, I've never even really formally tested if rain causes the roads to be wet.

umvi 6y ago

Well what if the science is still developing and is extremely complex and the predictive models require petabytes of data and supercomputers and expert interpretation? Like, say, with climate change. Doesn't seem like there's an easy way for an individual scientist to take in all that info and make accurate predictions. Hence groups of scientists reach a "consensus" of what the current best interpretation of the complexity is. The consensus might still be wrong, but at least it signals "all the experts are currently thinking the data means X, Y, Z"

lmm 6y ago
> Well what if the science is still developing and is extremely complex and the predictive models require petabytes of data and supercomputers and expert interpretation? Then the public and policymakers should be aware that there isn't a consensus. If there are question marks about a lot of points of detail, then we can't just average everyone and then be confident in the result of that.

renewiltord 6y ago

The scientific consensus is so that the guy who doesn't want to know the details can see what most experts believe. That's a perfectly reasonable way to develop knowledge if you weight it correctly. It's like when I want a TV, I want it to be big enough and show a nice enough picture. I just go to Wirecutter. I don't go buy and return a bunch of TVs till I'm content. That's because I've only got 80 years on this Earth. No one who uses first principles experiments for anything is capable of forming higher-level hypotheses. Heck, I've never even really formally tested if rain causes the roads to be wet.