4 ms·

We can both prove something and be consensual/unequivocal about it. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf https://ww

We can both prove something and be consensual/unequivocal about it. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... (page 41) Unequivocal means all scientists get to the same conclusion (we all measure the Earth being not flat). Consensual means that they all agree on expressing their mutual understanding (e.g issue a report saying they agree on the Earth not being flat). You're opposing the science itself and who people do science IRL. That's weird.

yosito 5y ago
> You're opposing the science itself and who people do science IRL. That's weird. No, I'm not opposing the science itself. I'm opposing confusing consensus with science. Science is the process of verifying truth through experimentation. If you skip the experimentation, and just say "trust us, we're Authorities, we all agree and we are sure beyond a doubt", that's not science, it's an ideological appeal to authority. Science is an important process, it's how humanity left the Dark Ages and entered the Enlightenment. Insisting that people cannot question the Official Consensus is backwards progress. FWIW, I think the data supports much of the consensus in this report. But the consensus is not science, and confusing the two is detrimental to public trust in science and to the process of science itself. There's a reason so many people are anti-science, and it's not because science is a bad process. It's because there's a culture that labels conclusions as science and says that they can't be questioned.