4 ms·

Fact check sites like the one you listed will increase their stature when they acknowledge that science is not a process of consensus. I look forward to reading

Fact check sites like the one you listed will increase their stature when they acknowledge that science is not a process of consensus. I look forward to reading a "fact check" site which "debunks" this ridiculous turn of phrase. Even if we accepted this misnomer in your quote, we can easily observe that "scientific consensus" has shifted throughout history. >(00:12:30) The climatic record in these deep sea cores tells us that there have been eight ice ages in the last 700,000 years. It also tells us when they have occurred. This provides us with a test of various theories of the ice ages. We now have a theory that tells us that changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit act as a pacemaker for the ice age succession. Since this theory can precisely predict when ice ages occured in the past, it also can predict when ice ages will occur in the future. From this theory we can say with confidence that we are currently heading towards another ice age. Dr. James D. Hays https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/EART_206/09-0303/Hays%20et%2076%20Science%20194-1121.pdf https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/EART_206/09-0303/Hays%2...

Infernal 5y ago
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/EART_206/09-0303/Hays%20et%2076%20Science%20194-1121.pdf https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/EART_206/09-0303/Hays%2... Somehow, your link was missing a hyphen.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Thank you.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> Fact check sites like the one you listed will increase their stature when they acknowledge that science is not a process of consensus. Science is absolutely about consensus. Being right is entirely meaningless if you can't produce enough evidence to convince others of your rightness. There's a very significant difference between "basically everyone in the field agrees there's enough evidence for X" and "one guy advocates X".
- aww_dang 5y ago
  I'd describe a consensus as a political event, not a scientific one.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Sure, and if you get enough of a consensus for that definition change, that'll be meaningful.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Shouldn’t consensus in policy be led by science rather than rigid dogma? “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” -Keynes Science is about understanding the facts that inform policy.
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      The question frames a false alternative in 'rigid dogma'. In a generous interpretation, I'd say that this line of reasoning quickly devolves into a chicken and egg scenario. 1) I changed my mind about the facts. 2) I declare that the facts have changed. 3) You must also change your mind or else I'll accuse you of adhering to dogma. 4) My view is now more popular. It is the prevailing dogma. You're against the consensus if you disagree with my "facts". The word "Facts" does heavy lifting here. Ultimately, facts can't make any assertions, only humans can. At the core of Scientism, there's always a presumptuous attempt to lay claim to objective truth. Science becomes a dogma and belief rather than a method of investigation.
      - bumby 5y ago
        >My view is now more popular. It is the prevailing dogma. I think you are misinterpreting the word “dogma”. It does not mean “consensus understanding” but rather “incontrovertibly true”. The former can change, the latter cannot; wordsmithing a false equivalence doesn’t turn real science into dogma.
        5y ago

Infernal 5y ago

https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/EART_206/09-0303/Hays%20et%2076%20Science%20194-1121.pdf https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/EART_206/09-0303/Hays%2... Somehow, your link was missing a hyphen.

aww_dang 5y ago
Thank you.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> Fact check sites like the one you listed will increase their stature when they acknowledge that science is not a process of consensus. Science is absolutely about consensus. Being right is entirely meaningless if you can't produce enough evidence to convince others of your rightness. There's a very significant difference between "basically everyone in the field agrees there's enough evidence for X" and "one guy advocates X".

aww_dang 5y ago
I'd describe a consensus as a political event, not a scientific one.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Sure, and if you get enough of a consensus for that definition change, that'll be meaningful.
- bumby 5y ago
  Shouldn’t consensus in policy be led by science rather than rigid dogma? “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” -Keynes Science is about understanding the facts that inform policy.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    The question frames a false alternative in 'rigid dogma'. In a generous interpretation, I'd say that this line of reasoning quickly devolves into a chicken and egg scenario. 1) I changed my mind about the facts. 2) I declare that the facts have changed. 3) You must also change your mind or else I'll accuse you of adhering to dogma. 4) My view is now more popular. It is the prevailing dogma. You're against the consensus if you disagree with my "facts". The word "Facts" does heavy lifting here. Ultimately, facts can't make any assertions, only humans can. At the core of Scientism, there's always a presumptuous attempt to lay claim to objective truth. Science becomes a dogma and belief rather than a method of investigation.
    - bumby 5y ago
      >My view is now more popular. It is the prevailing dogma. I think you are misinterpreting the word “dogma”. It does not mean “consensus understanding” but rather “incontrovertibly true”. The former can change, the latter cannot; wordsmithing a false equivalence doesn’t turn real science into dogma.
      - 5y ago