2 ms·
I find it ridiculous that people are quick to claim "science is dead" because a few scientists, being human, err or embarrass themselves, or because society as
by pwnstigator 17y ago
I find it ridiculous that people are quick to claim "science is dead" because a few scientists, being human, err or embarrass themselves, or because society as a whole may be having an anti-science backlash.
None of that has anything to do with science's value, and so long as science is valuable and some people are able to understand it, it won't die (barring a severe and sudden loss of knowledge by humanity as a whole).
Also, scientific consensus is meaningful. It'd be superfluous to say "scientific consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles from the earth", because that's basically a measured fact. On the other hand, that the species formed by natural selection is a scientific consensus, and a valid one. 99+% of those who have reviewed the debate have concluded that it's the best explanation there is, and that there are no good reasons for rejecting it.
- tensor 17y agoI'd like to add that scientific consensus is often a consensus of evidence, not a consensus of opinion as it so often is in politics.
- pwnstigator 17y agoExcellent point. However, people sometimes misuse the phrase "scientific consensus". For example, on the near-death experience, it's often said that "scientific consensus" is that the NDE is a biochemical phenomenon. Wrong. There is no scientific or medical consensus on that issue. The discrepancy regarding "scientific consensus" is much like that surrounding word "theory" in science, which has a precise meaning different from the colloquial definition. "Theory of Universal Graviation" and "Theory of Evolution" involve a much stronger definition of this word than "conspiracy theory". Evolution isn't "just a theory", in the colloquial sense of "theory"; it's an extremely well-supported probable explanation.