Posted on 04/22/2017 2:38:17 PM PDT by freedumb2003
This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as much early on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage.
If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists.
How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other.
“Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink?
When can you doubt a consensus? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternatives to their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger.
We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored.
So how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?
Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion. But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery.
(1) When different claims get bundled together ... (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate ... (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line ... (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish ... (5) When dissenters are excluded from the peer-reviewed journals not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but to marginalize them. ... (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented ... (7) When consensus is declared before it even exists ... (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus ... (9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution ... (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies ... (11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as fairly as possible ... (12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus ... Adapted from THE AMERICAN. This piece has been updated since its original publication.
Plagiarizing myself from another post:
I have pbs TV on, as background right now.
They are full of CR*P, but I feel the need to know the enemy.
Today is ERF day, so all these ‘specials’ are about global warming, dead coral, stealing the liver (coal) from the earth, ... , “Colonization’ is from the root of Colon, which is to ‘digest’” (no, it is from ‘farmer’ - me).
“Science should be the ultimate authority. You are all Patriots and make people “Examine the Evidence”, Glaciers melting, Seas rising... Vote, Contact your politicians - they WILL respond, ... , Citizen Science, Planetary Village, ...”
This is the brainwashing to feed the Sheeple, with some appearance of authority.
People driven my their emotions.
Rom 1:28
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
This Scripture is SO REAL to me right now.
Ignoring God,
Rom 1:25
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Rom 1:22
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
I do not know how fast the end is coming, but it IS coming.
just think where we would be of we had spent the gw money on real science.
Well they did used to practically be doctors!
/s
Good, applicable scriptural references.
Science is not a democracy or popularity contest where the idea with the most followers wins. In fact, History is full of examples where the “general consensus” was wrong, and shattered by lone rebels who didn’t agree.
In the late 1800s, the “general consensus” was that heavier-than-air craft could never fly, and was said to be a “physical impossibility” by the world’s greatest scientist, Lord Kelvin. Two bicycle-makers from Ohio made the world’s scientists look like fools.
Lots of other examples where dissenters broke the existing “consensus” and showed the truth. Science needs to always be questioned, if the idea is solid, it will withstand any rigid questioning.
Similarly, concepts that NEED to be protected from rigid questioning are probably suspect.
Part of the problem is with us. WE WANT SIMPLE ANSWERS.
What happens when a politician says, “I don’t know.” (I know it is tough test since it can never happen)
What happens wen a scientist says, “I don’t know.”
I don’t know is a most proper answer for 99% of questions.
Pseudo Science bump for later...
I had brunch today not far from downtown. Several “science” marchers came in wearing their event tee shirts. They all looked like 50 yo+ Hillary voters.
Wasn’t there a consensus many years ago that the earth was flat?
Not really. At least among the ancient cultures that had ships and watched them “disappear” over the horizon.
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certaindegree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
What happens when a politician says, “I don’t know.”
= = =
Then, “It is a complex problem (implying you all are stupid).”
Only we ‘elites’ are smart enough to cure it.
I am absorbed in this line of thinking right now.
Everything I see relates. Even “Democracy Now.”
Direct application is Granddaughter stuck in govt schools. Her parents are ‘cool’ with the system, or stuck with it.
I’m an old Grandpa. But her parents ARE smart enough to see that the system is not consistent with itself. Got to keep going (and praying) ...
Secondary application is me and wife’s lives. Not retirement as advertised.
The Bible/Word of God is more REAL each day. It is increasingly the ONLY solid TRUE foundation in my life. And that takes us to Revelations ... which WILL come to pass.
‘Life is what happens when you are busy making plans.’
(Which I have been crediting to John Lennon, but Googling suggests older sources ... will search and adjust credits as necessary.)
The left will change its tune on abortion in the same manner India (the world’s largest democracy) did when it became clear that “undesirable” children (in India’s case, females) were being deliberately aborted on that basis alone. When it becomes clear that Americans are doing the same thing (and they may be; a skewed male:female ratio I noticed decades ago when I was in grade school seems to be repeating itself in my children’s classes), then unborn babies will be “human” - but only the female ones (or if a “gay gene” is ever discovered, they’ll be human as well).
Consensus is not part of the scientific method. Consensus is often wrong.
The consensus was that manned supersonic flight was impossible.
Uncles Mao, Adolf, Stalin and others all had consensus.
IMHO
There is, FWIW, a "science" surrounding manipulation of the masses. It is trivially easy to mislead people.
But the left never lies.
They care about the children.
They love America.
They never commits crimes or bend the rules.
They are never hypocrites or illogical..?
So, therefore man made Global Warming, i mean Climate Change, must be fact.
And if it is a fact then must be taxed!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.