3 ms·

On the other hand, scientific consensus isn't "groupthink", and being a contrarian doesn't automatically entitle you to other people's attention and time.

chiefalchemist 4y ago
Or does it? There are plenty of examples where science got it wrong. Were it took years, even decades to get enough people to listen.* That's not the way science is supposed to work. Politics? Yes. But not science. I trust you can do the math from here. * And when the tides turn, these not even an acknowledgement, let alone an apology. Scientists shouldn't not be turning in their graves for lacking an apology. That level of arrogance is also not healthy and proper Science.
- eecc 4y ago
  Well the Vatican did, to Galileo Galilei. Eventualy, took a while :P https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460-600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460-600-vatican-...
pdonis 4y ago
> scientific consensus Science doesn't advance by consensus. It advances by constructing models and comparing their predictions with observations. As Einstein famously remarked when someone mentioned to him that a hundred scientists had signed a letter saying they were doubtful of his theory of relativity: "If the theory were wrong, one would have been enough." We don't believe our best current theories because there is a consensus. We believe them because they have made accurate predictions that have been confirmed by experimental data to many decimal places.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > [Science] advances by constructing models and comparing their predictions with observations. No, not so much. That is scientific method. Science is paradigmatic. The advancement of science only occurs when the current science paradigm is toppled. Currently, ΛCDM Theory is the paradigm. And it is not when it is discovered that CDM does not exist and the Universe is not expanding when the paradigm topples. Because that may have already happened... JWST may have completed this task. A decent example of the resilience of paradigms is the luminiferous ether. Michelson published the results of his experiment in 1881. Maybe there were some that immediately realized the significance, but the paradigm remained through the ether crisis, and even after Einstein published Special Relativity in 1905, and deep, deep into the 20th Century and arguably shallowly into the first few years of 21st Century. Science paradigms are sticky and resilient, even when they are completely wrong. So it will take decades after the discovery that CDM doesn't exist before most scientists are finally on the same page and the paradigm is finally toppled. Only then, after being wrong for maybe as long as 200 years and most have moved on away from the previous paradigm that Science legitimately advances.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

Or does it? There are plenty of examples where science got it wrong. Were it took years, even decades to get enough people to listen.* That's not the way science is supposed to work. Politics? Yes. But not science. I trust you can do the math from here. * And when the tides turn, these not even an acknowledgement, let alone an apology. Scientists shouldn't not be turning in their graves for lacking an apology. That level of arrogance is also not healthy and proper Science.

eecc 4y ago
Well the Vatican did, to Galileo Galilei. Eventualy, took a while :P https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460-600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460-600-vatican-...

pdonis 4y ago

> scientific consensus Science doesn't advance by consensus. It advances by constructing models and comparing their predictions with observations. As Einstein famously remarked when someone mentioned to him that a hundred scientists had signed a letter saying they were doubtful of his theory of relativity: "If the theory were wrong, one would have been enough." We don't believe our best current theories because there is a consensus. We believe them because they have made accurate predictions that have been confirmed by experimental data to many decimal places.

Maursault 4y ago
> [Science] advances by constructing models and comparing their predictions with observations. No, not so much. That is scientific method. Science is paradigmatic. The advancement of science only occurs when the current science paradigm is toppled. Currently, ΛCDM Theory is the paradigm. And it is not when it is discovered that CDM does not exist and the Universe is not expanding when the paradigm topples. Because that may have already happened... JWST may have completed this task. A decent example of the resilience of paradigms is the luminiferous ether. Michelson published the results of his experiment in 1881. Maybe there were some that immediately realized the significance, but the paradigm remained through the ether crisis, and even after Einstein published Special Relativity in 1905, and deep, deep into the 20th Century and arguably shallowly into the first few years of 21st Century. Science paradigms are sticky and resilient, even when they are completely wrong. So it will take decades after the discovery that CDM doesn't exist before most scientists are finally on the same page and the paradigm is finally toppled. Only then, after being wrong for maybe as long as 200 years and most have moved on away from the previous paradigm that Science legitimately advances.