Exactly. It works by testable hypotheses which, if confirmed, can be repeated by other scientists who, if the results continue to support the hypothesis, come to a consensus that the evidence supports the hypothesis. Okay?
1 Like
So what constitutes a “consensus “. 50.5% ?
That seems like a silly question to me. Was it rhetorical?
No. What constitutes a consensus ? Is it a simple majority 50.5 v 49.5 ? Is that how science works , a hand count ?
I don’t think you understand what the word consensus means.
Enlighten me. Let’s stick to Science though and how science and consensus are compatible
Do your own homework. Once you do, you’ll find (if you’re at all open to it) that they are, indeed, compatible.
Howdy, Sid. In all fairness, I can see your point there. If you don’t mind, I would like to try to clear that up for you a bit. (By the way, everybody else please correct me if I get something wrong in my explanation.) Keep in mind, this is just my personal understanding of how it works.
Say, for instance, somebody observes something interesting/odd and comes up with a new hypothesis. They then work out a few calculations showing its potential. Those calculations are presented to a few other scientist friends who then do their best to find fault with them. If it doesn’t hold up to testing, it gets tossed back to the originator who is told, “Do better,” or maybe in some cases, “Don’t bother us with this nonsense anymore.”
But let’s say the calculations hold up to initial testing, at which point it starts grabbing the attention of a larger section of the relevant scientific community. Now the calculations start getting SEVERELY put through the ringer. EVERYBODY wants to tear it to shreds, especially when it gets to a point to where some of the biggest scientific brains cannot find fault in it. So, after a period of time when everybody has exhausted all available means currently available to them, everybody who has worked with the calculations “gathers” to determine the results. They then decide either, “Yes, it is sound and reliable enough for now to be accepted as a viable theory,” or they decide, “While it has certainly held up quite well, we just don’t feel completely comfortable yet telling others to rely on it fully.”
Now, regardless of the decision, it DOES NOT MEAN nobody ever questions those calculations again. On the contrary, there will be those who might make it their “career goal” to either fully reinforce the calculations or totally destroy them. Because, keep in mind, we as a society are always advancing in knowledge and technology. Therefore, testing methods/concepts not available today may very well be developed later down the road. Which is why things are always changing in the scientific world. Hope that helps.
3 Likes
It isn’t a fallacy because he isn’t using it to come to a logical conclusion. Saying X is true BECAUSE lots of people believe it would be a fallacy. Deciding to walk down the street with the crowd instead of against it; isn’t a logical fallacy.
2 Likes
Just off the top of my head: independent reproduction of experiment results. Oh, also: the expected distribution is often worked up from what is the common consensus.
2 Likes
You can’t prove such things. You should disabuse yourself of such notions or science will never make any sense to you. In my experience, most people don’t know what science is. I thought I knew until I took a real science course in uni and discovered I was ignorant as fuck.
3 Likes
Are you insane?: Have you not heard of independent verification? It is the cornerstone of scientific inquiry. It is “consensus.” Consensus of research, consensus of experimentation, and consensus measurement and observation.
Oh how I would like to fling. I am going to assume you are actually making a statement of belief and not just being a trolling idiot. Consensus is everything in science. No scientific theory stands alone. It must be demonstrated to be true. How is it demonstrated? Through consensus.
You are confusing two ideas. Consensus is not the reason for scientific belief. Facts and evidence are the reasons for the belief. But no facts or evidence are ever accepted without consensus. Consensus of research, experimentation, etc. It means I can do the same experiment you did and get the exact same results. If people can do the same experiment and get different results, there is no consensus. And a theory or hypothesis can be rejected. You are thinking of belief based only on consensus without facts or evidential support.
You are just wrong.
And how do you know, how good the evidence is? HINT: Peer review, independent verification, and consensus. If you do not get consensus, your theory or hypothesis is rejected. When new information comes along that challenges the consensus and offers a better way of describing the facts and data, the consensus changes. That is science.
1 Like
Not all politics. Electing a representative of some sort via popular vote is NOT a consensus. A multitude of representatives creating or enacting a law, or body of laws might be a consensus. It isn’t always.
Dear Mr. Sid.
I once took a course in astronomy and the professor actually did work out a model for the earth being the center of the solar system and everything revolving around it. Let me see if I can find an example online. Here you are…
There is no problem figuring out the math off the Earth being at the center of the universe. So why don’t we use this model? A little thing called Occam’s Razor - basically, the model is insanely complex.
Find out more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC74lhJX9Ck
You really don’t seem to know much about science. Perhaps you should talk about something about which you know a thing or two?
3 Likes
Crrrrraaaashhhhh, as the goal posts are moved clumsily again. A scientific consensus us part of the methods of science, you were wrong Sid, have the integrity to accept it.
It seems you still have not read the link I provided the first time you asserted this false claim about scientific consensus. I’ve posted it twice as well???
I already posted this in the aforementioned link? One more time then:
“Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review.”
Nope, fascism and totalitarianism are political ideologies, as are absolute monarchies, and none of those work by consensus.
Objective empirical evidence, which is demonstrated by a scientific consensus of scientists in the relevant field of expertise.
1 Like
The data must support the hypothesis. So the consensus must be unequivocal.
If the data does not always support the hypothesis, this sheds doubt on it. And, in cases like this, consensus is not total.
It leaves the question open to debate. The hypothesis may need revision.
And is why it is an hypothesis instead of a theory.
That’s all well and fine Sheldon but that’s not what I’m referring to when I use the term “ Science “ and that consensus is irrelevant to science . Your example is people talking about science and journalists framing a narrative about science . I am talking about Science from a Feynman perspective . The famous quote attributed to him “ “The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” - speaking and writing about science is not “ Science” from the his point of view , doing Science is Science . From this perspective the consensus is irrelevant and the consensus will only subject you to the “ ignorance of experts “ ( Feynman ) . What is the “ Consensus “ today well be discarded in the garbage can of science history tomorrow.
What is the difference between Science and science?
3 Likes
Ahemmmmm… You can not seriously believe Feynman discounted all that came before him. If what you assert were true, Feynman would be a sheep herder, lying on a hillside, contemplating the universe. Hell no! I take that back, he would have no concept of universe. He would wonder about the little holes in the night sky. To imagine Feynman or any scientist got to where they were at by ignoring the perspective of consensus, is utter nonsense.
Consensus does not limit you to the ignorance of experts because it is not consensus that is important but independent verification of the facts that support the consensus. The experts are the experts, not because of consensus, but because they have done the experiments and arrived at consensus. The only way to get beyond this consensus is to come up with a better explanation that more accurately explains all the data and in doing so, creating a new consensus.
5 Likes