3 ms·
I'm curious about where we draw the line on questioning scientific consensus. Take Cliff Mass - he's a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at UW whose research f
by influx 2y ago
I'm curious about where we draw the line on questioning scientific consensus.
Take Cliff Mass - he's a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at UW whose research focuses on weather modeling, climate systems, and atmospheric dynamics. When someone with his expertise raises questions about climate science conclusions, should we approach this differently than when non-experts do so?
This raises an interesting question about the role of expertise and scientific discourse: Is there a meaningful distinction between how we treat challenges to consensus from qualified researchers in the field versus those from outside it? Or should acceptance of consensus apply equally regardless of one's credentials?
- momoschili 2y agoAs an imperfect analogy, Stephen Wolfram is a fairly successful theoretical physicist by academic standards with considerable expertise, yet his theories on fundamental physics and its interpretations are considered fringe in the physics community because he most of what he spins is untestable conjecture. Individuals who disagree with the scientific consensus aren't always wrong, but most of the time they are. What separates these people is the amount of evidence they can bring to the table.
- lispisok 2y agoHe doesnt challenge scientific consensus. What he does challenge is people making any claim they want then adding "because climate change" at the end which has become a problem. One side will deny climate change and the other side starting taking any claim at face value as long as you say "because climate change"