4 ms·

On scientific consensus delivering the goods, here you seem to have it backwards (or our experiences of how science is conducted differs fundamentally). To my k

On scientific consensus delivering the goods, here you seem to have it backwards (or our experiences of how science is conducted differs fundamentally). To my knowledge, one person and one experiment (usually, except where the product is purely mathematical) is enough to propose a new theory (but also to refute an existing one). If a debunked theory was supported by scientific consensus (ie theory wasn't standing on its own), what happens to the consensus it merited? and the so-called scientists who "voted?" Or perhaps the scientific consensus was just paperweight? Scientific consensus provides a means for bad science/scientists to escape ostracism (I use this with the full intensity of its definitions). Because it provides a thick and opaque veil behind which the clergy (all scientists) instructs the laity (the rest of us). Individual scientists no longer stand and fall on their own. So call them cranks if you want but the individuals standing on the banks of the "scientific consensus" stream are arguably the closest we have to 16th and 17th century scientists tinkering away in their private labs, making discoveries that continue to bear their names. Now, to a philosophy of science I subscribe to: Popper's Falsifiability Test. An undercurrent (probably prominent, even) theme is this: new confirmatory experiments add nothing new if they don't deviate materially from the original experiment. Following this, the whole enterprise of scientific consensus stands on shaky grounds since it adds nothing. It transforms science into a faith-based exercise (akin to bishops at a synod throwing their weights behind certain theories and declaring other bishops as cranks/heretics). This I do not accept.

nemo 5y ago
>To my knowledge, one person and one experiment (usually, except where the product is purely mathematical) is enough to propose a new theory (but also to refute an existing one). To my knowledge theories proposed that way in modern science aren't taken seriously and in our present time are not the norm for any recent major scientific discoveries or research. Those days are long past. New science is done in expensive labs with very expensive equipment and gets funded by grants. The Alvarez Hypothesis was possible because of cutting edge nuclear science that could identify the iridium. LIGO, and every space science and astronomical discovery are driven by really expensive ever growing scopes. In astronomy, chem, physics, molecular biology, paleontology, et al today you'll need an expensive lab and very large grants to do cutting edge work. At this point we're building colliders many kilometers in length. Modern Science is a product of well funded labs with staffing and equipment funded largely by research grants. There are cases in domains like macrobiology where individuals could do field work and find a new species, but the domains where the individual scientist is doing meaningful work are dwindling to none, and you should update your model of how modern science actually operates and is funded, it's interesting.
- yawboakye 5y ago
  This isn't an argument in favor of scientific consensus. There's no straight path between expensive, collaborative research/science and scientific consensus. If anything the units of science have moved from individuals to teams acting as a body. But this isn't scientific consensus.

nemo 5y ago

>To my knowledge, one person and one experiment (usually, except where the product is purely mathematical) is enough to propose a new theory (but also to refute an existing one). To my knowledge theories proposed that way in modern science aren't taken seriously and in our present time are not the norm for any recent major scientific discoveries or research. Those days are long past. New science is done in expensive labs with very expensive equipment and gets funded by grants. The Alvarez Hypothesis was possible because of cutting edge nuclear science that could identify the iridium. LIGO, and every space science and astronomical discovery are driven by really expensive ever growing scopes. In astronomy, chem, physics, molecular biology, paleontology, et al today you'll need an expensive lab and very large grants to do cutting edge work. At this point we're building colliders many kilometers in length. Modern Science is a product of well funded labs with staffing and equipment funded largely by research grants. There are cases in domains like macrobiology where individuals could do field work and find a new species, but the domains where the individual scientist is doing meaningful work are dwindling to none, and you should update your model of how modern science actually operates and is funded, it's interesting.

yawboakye 5y ago
This isn't an argument in favor of scientific consensus. There's no straight path between expensive, collaborative research/science and scientific consensus. If anything the units of science have moved from individuals to teams acting as a body. But this isn't scientific consensus.