|
April 14th, 2010 | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
When to Doubt a Scientific 'Consensus'
When to Doubt a Scientific 'Consensus'
By: Jay Richards The American March 16, 2010 A December 18 Washington Post poll, released on the final day of the ill-fated Copenhagen climate summit, reported “four in ten Americans now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment.” Nor is the poll an outlier. Several recent polls have found “climate change” skepticism rising faster than sea levels on Planet Algore (not to be confused with Planet Earth, where sea levels remain relatively stable). Many of the doubt-inducing climate scientists and their media acolytes attribute this rising skepticism to the stupidity of Americans, philistines unable to appreciate that there is “a scientific consensus on climate change.” One of the benefits of the recent Climategate scandal, which revealed leading climate scientists manipulating data, methods, and peer review to exaggerate the evidence of significant global warming, may be to permanently deflate the rhetorical value of the phrase “scientific consensus.” Even without the scandal, the very idea of scientific consensus should give us pause. “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That pretty much sums up the dilemma. We want to know whether a scientific consensus is based on solid evidence and sound reasoning, or social pressure and groupthink. Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. Many false ideas enjoyed consensus opinion at one time. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often shapes the thinking of scientists so strongly that they become unable to accurately summarize, let alone evaluate, radical alternatives. Question the paradigm, and some respond with dogmatic fanaticism. We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are always cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone somewhere—easily accessible online—that thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best disregarded. So what’s a non-scientist citizen, without the time to study the scientific details, to do? How is the ordinary citizen to distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? Conversely, how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Are we obligated 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, maintains, and communicates the ostensible consensus. I don’t know of any exhaustive list of signs of suspicion, but, using climate change as a test study, I propose this checklist as a rough-and-ready list of signs for when to consider doubting 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 suspicious. Continued- http://www.discovery.org/a/14351
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
April 15th, 2010 | #2 | |
Das Ende
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Midwestern "United States of America"
Posts: 1,488
|
Scientists make poor statesmen--and excellent targets for charlatans and tricksters of all varieties.
Quote:
__________________
An anti-semite is someone who knows what's going on. |
|
April 15th, 2010 | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
|
"The myth of ‘equality’ has created an enormous amount of human and social damage. In recent years, it has taken a heavy toll in human lives, and caused untold suffering”.
|
April 15th, 2010 | #4 | |
baппed
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: A:\
Posts: 3,367
|
Quote:
|
|
April 15th, 2010 | #6 |
Enkidu
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
Posts: 4,297
|
Science, whether it comes out of a university or a government lab., is about 60% bought and paid for crap, and is done to support political or corporate agendas.
After that, it is maybe 30% cultish pseudo-science, on no better grounds than any religion or superstition. The remaining 10% is somewhat worth paying attention to. Some of it is right, some is wrong, but it's at least honest. I may have the percentages wrong, but in essence, that's it. I spent a lot of years in a university, somehow managing to get a couple of degrees, one in math, one in physics. No discipline is immune. It can be brutal to be an honest professor in a university...knowing things that are true, that you can't say; and things that are false, that you are required to pretend to believe. I never taught, though for a while I was a graduate assistant in physics. I knew a lot of cynical professors who basically knew the whole system was bullshit. Even physics and chemistry aren't immune. Here is the scientific method: 1. Get the grant. 2. Find out what the people who will sign the check want the study to show. 3. Cherry-pick the data, or what-the-hell, just lie. 4. Write a report that will make the check writers happy. 5. Cash the check. 6. Repeat steps 1. through 5. That's it in a nutshell. Mike
__________________
Hunter S. Thompson, "Big dark, coming soon" |
Tags |
climate change, climategate, consensus, discovery institute, global warming |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|