"It is not quite sufficient, in answering this question, to point to a near-consensus on the part of the scientific community, thus in effect arguing that scien

"It is not quite sufficient, in answering this question, to point to a near-consensus on the part of the scientific community, thus in effect arguing that science is what the vast majority of scientists say it is. If this is largely how the argument does indeed function in the cases of debates about the safety of vaccines or the causes of global warming, we should nonetheless be aware of its flaws." "If an elderly, respected scientist tells you something is possible, he is very likely right. If he tells you something is impossible, he is likely wrong." --- An old SF fandom saying. If a ginormous herd of scientists tell you something, possible or impossible, they may not be right but that is the way you want to place your bets. [Edit] "But there are broad guidelines that could help. We might insist, for example, that those wishing to challenge the scientific consensus do their homework, demonstrating a competent (but not necessarily expert) understanding of the theories and empirical data they wish to displace. We might require that they have reasonable arguments concerning the theory or data’s flaws that do not presuppose, as some anti-vaccine arguments do, the existence of a large-scale conspiracy to distort the truth. And we would be well within our rights to demand that they argue in good faith and not — as historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have shown for many climate change denialists — as professional water-muddiers, following a playbook first written by cigarette companies attempting to obfuscate a known connection between smoking and cancer." Ooh, I like that.