There is no such thing as consensus science

[Darkfire]

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."

—Michael Crichton, M.D., Harvard
January 17, 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology

 

[cchase]

Good luck with this thread.

To keep this on the straight and narrow, I will say that it's interesting that forums come to conclusions through consensus for so many things that really shouldn't.

 

[NateDN10]

I think that is true to a point. For example, great scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin (among others) reached conclusions that weren't with consensus.

However, everyone else eventually realized that they were right and eventually came to agree with their discoveries (consensus). If you have one lone wolf with whom everyone disagrees (because the evidence is against them), the consensus can be telling.

As an example, see the Clem's Engine thread in the Gasoline alternative fuels subforum.

 

[TooManyWheels]

And it is basic to the nature of science that you will have scientists in total agreement on a broad subject, but with some professional differences on the details. It which point, people who are not scientists at all try to discredit all of them because there is still some leading edge of theory which is being worked out.

 

[d00df00d]

There are about as many ways to read this quotation rightly as there are to read it wrongly...

 

[Boomer]

I remeber as a chemist going to a plant where there was a scorching issue with PVC. Now PVC scorches when it gets hot unless you put in specific stabilizers. Today they are calciu and zinc based. In olden days, lead and cadmium stabilizers were used. When I got to the plant, I immediately saw that their formulation contained no stabilizer! They had taken it out to "save money." When I pointed this out, the plant manager asked all those present at the meeting how many believed PVC was unstable without stabilizer. I was the only one who put up his hand. He then said, "There is a CONSENSUS here that you are wrong." He informed my boss that I was not a "team player." Nevertheless as the losses mounted, they were finally forced to use stabilizer.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Darkfire
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."

—Michael Crichton, M.D., Harvard
January 17, 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology



Rational thought in high-profile literature and media lost a tremendous voice when Michael Crichton passed away. He is sorely missed.

 

[Kuato]

Science is science. You cannot argue with the observed data.

I Submit that you can have consensus scientific theory, but that does not make it fact

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Kuato
I Submit that you can have consensus scientific theory, but that does not make it fact

Probably a minor point for this thread, but the word "theory" in science doesn't mean what it means in colloquial speech.

 

[Garak]

Actually, I'd consider that a very major point. Application of the theory of gravitation shows that objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s in a vacuum on the earth's surface. The theory works each and every time, and if it didn't, the theory would be disproved.

 

[Obos]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
There are about as many ways to read this quotation rightly as there are to read it wrongly...


Hopefully we'll reach a consensus on that point

In principle Crichton is right

But when all the facts are not known, science makes assumptions

If many scientists, working independently, come to a consensus then that would be the very best theory we have at that point in time

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Obos
But when all the facts are not known, science makes assumptions

Guesses, not assumptions.


Originally Posted By: Obos
If many scientists, working independently, come to a consensus then that would be the very best theory we have at that point in time

This part is pretty much true.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Kuato
Science is science. You cannot argue with the observed data.


People manipulate their interpretations of science all the time.

I once heard a speech of pseudo science from a Geology professor (who moon shine as a religious leader) about how mutation doesn't happen. Well, we see it in the lab on e coli all the time, and we know it happens when Round Up resistance weed starts popping up when the field is seeded with Round Up ready crops.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Science is science. You cannot argue with the observed data.


People manipulate their interpretations of science all the time.

.


So true, I have to chuckle at the arrogance of these types, who by the way are also the first to bluster about how irrational and illogical those are that believe in God. Those that have science as their religion are hypocrites of the worst kind.

 

[mechtech2]

Antique -
So right.
What is called science is often keeping one's job, and getting grants. Isogesis instead of exogesis occurs. [conclucions are read INTO, instead of OUT of data].

To the OP... We can have both.
Both a singular person/idea that is right, vs. all others who are wrong. Or, many who agree and one is wrong.
A problem that I see is when people willingly omit facts/items, and draw their conclusions. We have to integrate even the oddball or unusual data into our conclusions.

 

[simple_gifts]

If a group of scientists assert something that you think is wrong, there is always the scientific method to show them the fallacy of their position. They are using it, and it is the only legitimate method to counter their claims; all other method of complaint is white noise; Show us your work.....

 

[sleddriver]

I agree with Michael. What a talented writer. I've enjoyed many of his books and writings.

Decades ago, a famous physist also talked about what is science, and what isn't during his commencement address at CalTech. His name? Richard Feynman. He calls it "Cargo Cult Science". Look it up. Interesting read.

Quote:
In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Kuato
I Submit that you can have consensus scientific theory, but that does not make it fact

Probably a minor point for this thread, but the word "theory" in science doesn't mean what it means in colloquial speech.

Please do enlighten us all.

Quote:
Guesses, not assumptions.

Is one better than the other? A distinction without a difference?

Quote:
If many scientists, working independently, come to a consensus then that would be the very best theory we have at that point in time


That is a large assumption. And it would still be a theory.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
And it is basic to the nature of science that you will have scientists in total agreement on a broad subject, but with some professional differences on the details. It which point, people who are not scientists at all try to discredit all of them because there is still some leading edge of theory which is being worked out.


What are the necessary credentials to confirm a person as a "scientist"?

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
And it is basic to the nature of science that you will have scientists in total agreement on a broad subject, but with some professional differences on the details. It which point, people who are not scientists at all try to discredit all of them because there is still some leading edge of theory which is being worked out.


What are the necessary credentials to confirm a person as a "scientist"?



"Confirm" to "whom"?