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.
It also points out implicitly the difference between how TToE is science and AGW is not. EVEN IF you don't agree with TToE, you know that straw man will be thrown in your face.
This article shuts it down and explains real science vs. AGW.
Let's avoid the CREVO wars, OK? I won't respond to bait in that direction.
This thread is a Public Service.
Real science is about challenging the consensus.
Had Einstein not challenged the consensus there would be no theory of relativity.
Not only is the consensus wrong, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.
Happy Birthday, Lenin....
Will do.
One of Bill Clinton’s 1000 scientists in his consensus was a barber.
Science uses the scientific method.
Climate “science” does not use the scientific method.
Any questions?
Not that there was anything political about it, but until the theory of relativity was developed around the constancy of the speed of light for all observers, the scientific consensus was that there was an “aether” through which electromagnetic waves passed. Opinion on this, from many great minds, was universal... and as it turned out, incorrect.
The politics of dancing
The politics of ooo feeling good
The politics of moving
Is this message understood?
The left denies the scientific fact that unborn babies are living, human beings with their own unique DNA from conception.
The left denies the scientific fact that male and female sexes are biologically determined in humans by X and Y chromosomes.
The left is anti-science.
Excellent analysis, applicable to many, many different issues across the spectrum of science and public policy.
Thanks for posting this. It’s a keeper.
Sorry, but I only get info from men who wear a bow tie.
> Real science is about challenging the consensus. <
That’s exactly right. All scientific “consensuses” - whatever they are about - must be doubted. Nothing should be taken as settled! As you noted, Einstein doubted the works of Newton. And so the Theory of Relativity was born.
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
The first step in successfully disguising politics as science is to stop teaching the scientific method in schools imo.
After all, schools long ago stopped teaching the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers and look where that has got us.
In any scientific debate, I tend to initially gravitate to the minority side. That side of the issue is more challenging, and at any rate, apes tend to get most everything wrong initially.
bfl
Consensus is not part of the scientific method. Groupthink is only useful in politics to get people to conform to the masses. Science values skepticism which liberals basically hate.
Unless the chaotic system has a repeatable pattern. Our climate system does right now over the 1,000 year time frame. Called the ice ages.
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.