4 ms·
Science by definition does not require a consensus. If there is such a thing as "scientific consensus" then it's not actually scientific at all.
by TedShiller 5y ago
Science by definition does not require a consensus. If there is such a thing as "scientific consensus" then it's not actually scientific at all.
- phreeza 5y agoWhile it's true that science internally does not need or want a consensus, there must be some mechanism to convert science back into action recommendations for non-scientific life, unless we want science to be an entirely hermetic activity with no outputs. Observing if there is a (close) consensus among scientists seems like one way of achieving this, wouldn't you agree?
- woodruffw 5y ago“Consensus” is not itself a scientific object. It’s a social object describing the shared views of a bunch of scientists, which is exactly what TFA says.
- ALittleLight 5y agoIs there scientific consensus that the Earth orbits the sun?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- TedShiller 5y agoThere may be but there shouldn’t have to be
- UncleMeat 5y agoBut engineering does. We make decisions based on the best available understanding at the time, and the best available understanding right now is that greenhouse gas emissions must be dramatically reduced or else the planet will experience temperatures high enough to cause extreme disruption to critical human systems. Is it possible that everybody has missed something and the field is totally wrong? In theory, yes. But that is almost entirely irrelevant to whether we should act. This whinging over the nature of science is just a distraction tactic.