> This is how you get journalists to report disagreements that don't exist in reality. For example, whether the earth is flat, whether climate change is real, e

> This is how you get journalists to report disagreements that don't exist in reality. For example, whether the earth is flat, whether climate change is real, etc. Correct. Part of the problem is that there is disagreement about whether a disagreement exists. Cranks believe that there is a vigorous debate about flat-earth/evolution/climate change, and scientists don't. Do how does one (journalist) objectively determine whether an issue is settled or not?