4 ms·

Can you provide a falsifiable definition of "scientific consensus"?

by RobertRoberts 5y ago

diordiderot 5y ago
That doesn't make sense linguistically. Can you provide a falsifiable definition of "turtles"?
- Stupulous 5y ago
  "Turtles are all animals with shells" is falsifiable in the sense that you can say an animal without a shell is falsely called a turtle, and that an example of an animal with a shell that is not a turtle disproves the definition. Not clear which sense is being asked for here, but it does parse.
  - diordiderot 5y ago
    I feel like what you'd actually be falsifying is. "That thing is a turtle" Rather than it's definition. Honestly not trying to be pedantic.
munificent 5y ago
This is a fascinatingly weird sentence. You're using falsifiability here, I assume, to deliberately invoke the Popperian notion of what is and isn't science, but then applying it to a description of the science process itself. The short answer is that, no, no one can provide a falsifiable definition of scientific consensus any more than one could devise an experiment that uses the scientific method to validate the scientific method. It's validity would have a circular dependence on its own validity. Science is not science all the way down in some infinite regress that somehow magically stands up. It is not a self-proving Ouroboros. Science is a particular social system—a set of rules, culture, artifacts, and participants—for establishing consensus and one particular definition of truth. It happens to have a great track record for producing predictions that correlate with objective reality. But it's still ultimately a social system.
- RobertRoberts 5y ago
  You cleverly avoided the topic "scientific consensus" by changing the discussion to "science" as a broader (oddly undefinable) concept. Don't you think it's a risky argument to present something as black and white as facts (science is supposed to be based on them almost exclusively in some areas) as merely a concept of group imagination? Assuming there is no psychological perspective to be argued, surely a factual, provable definition can be at least attempted? In the spirit of science perhaps? (edit: phrasing)
  - munificent 5y ago
    > You cleverly avoided the topic "scientific consensus" by changing the discussion to "science" as a broader (oddly undefinable) concept. I believe the two are essentially synonymous. "Scentific consensus" is what most scientists agree is true. "Science" is the process people use to define who is a scientist and what that consensus is. > Don't you think it's a risky argument to present something as black and white as facts (science is supposed to be based on them almost exclusively in some areas) as merely a concept of group imagination? Absolutely not. While there may be facts "out there" that are black and white, we have no metaphysical direct access to them. Consensus is as close to black and white as facts get. We're all just primate brains full neurons screeching monkey sounds at each other. We are not mathematical machines of pure reason. > surely a factual, provable definition can be at least attempted? "Factual" and "provable" are not concepts that apply to definitions. Can you offer a factual falsifiable proof of the definition of "squirrel"? "Green"?
    - RobertRoberts 5y ago
      > I believe the two are essentially synonymous. science = pursuit of truth consensus = a group agrees on a something These can be diametrically opposed. So how do you reconcile this potential for conflict? Keeping in mind that there is rift in society right now where groups use both science and consensus as a rhetorical or verbal bludgeon to win arguments.
      - 5y ago

Can you provide a falsifiable definition of "scientific consensus"?

diordiderot 5y ago

That doesn't make sense linguistically. Can you provide a falsifiable definition of "turtles"?

Stupulous 5y ago
"Turtles are all animals with shells" is falsifiable in the sense that you can say an animal without a shell is falsely called a turtle, and that an example of an animal with a shell that is not a turtle disproves the definition. Not clear which sense is being asked for here, but it does parse.
- diordiderot 5y ago
  I feel like what you'd actually be falsifying is. "That thing is a turtle" Rather than it's definition. Honestly not trying to be pedantic.

munificent 5y ago

This is a fascinatingly weird sentence. You're using falsifiability here, I assume, to deliberately invoke the Popperian notion of what is and isn't science, but then applying it to a description of the science process itself. The short answer is that, no, no one can provide a falsifiable definition of scientific consensus any more than one could devise an experiment that uses the scientific method to validate the scientific method. It's validity would have a circular dependence on its own validity. Science is not science all the way down in some infinite regress that somehow magically stands up. It is not a self-proving Ouroboros. Science is a particular social system—a set of rules, culture, artifacts, and participants—for establishing consensus and one particular definition of truth. It happens to have a great track record for producing predictions that correlate with objective reality. But it's still ultimately a social system.

RobertRoberts 5y ago
You cleverly avoided the topic "scientific consensus" by changing the discussion to "science" as a broader (oddly undefinable) concept. Don't you think it's a risky argument to present something as black and white as facts (science is supposed to be based on them almost exclusively in some areas) as merely a concept of group imagination? Assuming there is no psychological perspective to be argued, surely a factual, provable definition can be at least attempted? In the spirit of science perhaps? (edit: phrasing)
- munificent 5y ago
  > You cleverly avoided the topic "scientific consensus" by changing the discussion to "science" as a broader (oddly undefinable) concept. I believe the two are essentially synonymous. "Scentific consensus" is what most scientists agree is true. "Science" is the process people use to define who is a scientist and what that consensus is. > Don't you think it's a risky argument to present something as black and white as facts (science is supposed to be based on them almost exclusively in some areas) as merely a concept of group imagination? Absolutely not. While there may be facts "out there" that are black and white, we have no metaphysical direct access to them. Consensus is as close to black and white as facts get. We're all just primate brains full neurons screeching monkey sounds at each other. We are not mathematical machines of pure reason. > surely a factual, provable definition can be at least attempted? "Factual" and "provable" are not concepts that apply to definitions. Can you offer a factual falsifiable proof of the definition of "squirrel"? "Green"?
  - RobertRoberts 5y ago
    > I believe the two are essentially synonymous. science = pursuit of truth consensus = a group agrees on a something These can be diametrically opposed. So how do you reconcile this potential for conflict? Keeping in mind that there is rift in society right now where groups use both science and consensus as a rhetorical or verbal bludgeon to win arguments.
    - 5y ago