2 ms·

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.
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma 1 usually disapproving : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted These new findings challenge the current dogma in the field. political dogma 2: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization 1a: something held as an established opinion especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds 2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
      - bumby 5y ago
        >without being questioned or doubted This is not congruent of science. >doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith Again, “faith” is antithetical to science. Faith requires no evidence, science does. The Oxford English Dictionary defines dogma as: “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” I.e., dogma cannot be disputed. Science is meant to be disputed. It seems you are confusing political opinion for science.
        aww_dang 5y ago
        >Again, “faith” is antithetical to science. This is the point of using this word in this specific context. Scientism isn't science. Hope this helps.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  There are plenty of soft sciences (and even some hard) where the sum-total of know facts still have different interpretations.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Yes, but that cannot be called a consensus. I’d claim that just means there is too much uncertainty to make a determination. (And less anyone misunderstands, consensus is not synonymous with unanimous)
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      Hmm, yet many forge on ahead. If lack of consensus was lethal I'm not sure much of what we "know" about history would be accepted.
      - bumby 5y ago
        Accepted isn’t necessarily the problem. Being willing to accept without acknowledging remaining uncertainty is the problem. Science is often about narrowing in on the answer, while being humble enough to acknowledge it may not be “the” answer. Most new ideas that occur at the margins of that uncertainty won’t initially be accepted, but as more data comes in that uncertainty is reduced

Sure, and if you get enough of a consensus for that definition change, that'll be meaningful.

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.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma 1 usually disapproving : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted These new findings challenge the current dogma in the field. political dogma 2: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization 1a: something held as an established opinion especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds 2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
    - bumby 5y ago
      >without being questioned or doubted This is not congruent of science. >doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith Again, “faith” is antithetical to science. Faith requires no evidence, science does. The Oxford English Dictionary defines dogma as: “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” I.e., dogma cannot be disputed. Science is meant to be disputed. It seems you are confusing political opinion for science.
      - aww_dang 5y ago
        >Again, “faith” is antithetical to science. This is the point of using this word in this specific context. Scientism isn't science. Hope this helps.
Chris2048 5y ago
There are plenty of soft sciences (and even some hard) where the sum-total of know facts still have different interpretations.
- bumby 5y ago
  Yes, but that cannot be called a consensus. I’d claim that just means there is too much uncertainty to make a determination. (And less anyone misunderstands, consensus is not synonymous with unanimous)
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Hmm, yet many forge on ahead. If lack of consensus was lethal I'm not sure much of what we "know" about history would be accepted.
    - bumby 5y ago
      Accepted isn’t necessarily the problem. Being willing to accept without acknowledging remaining uncertainty is the problem. Science is often about narrowing in on the answer, while being humble enough to acknowledge it may not be “the” answer. Most new ideas that occur at the margins of that uncertainty won’t initially be accepted, but as more data comes in that uncertainty is reduced