Consensus

[abysterical]

'Consensus' should be, absolutely, the most-feared term in the scientific community. 'Consensus' does nothing but shut out alternative/minority views. 'Consensus' is often used to (wrongly) turn theory into fact, in the public eye. Why is it so openly accepted & used today, even among the top of the scientific community?

 

I only know the basics, and that started with the scientific method. It's wrong until it's right. But I'm seeing so much action today being taken with 'consensus' as the reason, that it's making me sick...

 

Someone please give me... "faith"... that in our 'enlightened' society, that science is science is science, free of external pressures, and that challenges can be made open and freely without fear of repercussion, 'consensus' be damned...

[Turtle]

...Someone please give me... "faith"... that in our 'enlightened' society, that science is science is science, free of external pressures, and that challenges can be made open and freely without fear of repercussion, 'consensus' be damned...

 

in other words, you are looking for a consensus on your view that a consensus is bad. :doh:

[athinker]

Here's a vote that consensus is bad. It's fallacious for one thing, agumentum ad populum.

 

When one resorts to invoking the "consensus" or "mainstream" position it is usually an ackowlegment that they have reached the limit of their knowledge. They can't dispute with a legitimate mainstream argument (fact) because they don't know a legitimate mainstream argument. Maybe there is no mainstream argument. Maybe the mainstream is simply mistaken.

 

Then again there are those who claim that "mainstream" speculations are mainstream positions. These are very common on the internet.

 

It's very useful to identify fallacious arguments. As soon as you identify them then you know the opposing argument has reached the limit of his knowledge. That is not to say that his limit is the limit of what is known. Though it may be he may erroneously claim that it is the mainstream. He may insist that you "prove" your argument to an undefined level of proof.

 

"Extordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". I can claim that I own a VW. Not an extraordinary car. Show the car, that's the proof. I can claim I own a 1936 Rolls Royce Phantom. Extraordinary car, exactly the same proof. I can claim I own a flying saucer. Very extraordinary claim. Exactly the same proof.

 

Some proofs are not as easy to identify. Some amy claim that most of the galaxy is dark matter distributed in the disk, or in a "halo" above and below the disk. I can show by a mathematical analysis of the rotation curve that is not true. But many who don't understanding the math will simply adhere to the vox populi. There is not much you can do about it. Besides reaching the limit of their knowledge you can know here that you have reached the limit of their principles.

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, abysterical :) Be sure to read the site rules - they help avoid the pandemonium common to lightly moderated fora ;) - and feel free to create an introduction forum thread telling us about you - knowing a bit about one another lets us use our long-evolved social instincts to improve communication.

 

'Consensus' should be, absolutely, the most-feared term in the scientific community.

Personally, I try not to be fear-free in all situations. I've found fear paralyzes the mind and leads to hysteria and paranoia, and, as Frank Herbert famously put it, "is the little death"

 

'Consensus' does nothing but shut out alternative/minority views.

In general and in my experience, it's rare for any sentence of the form <X> does nothing but <Y> to have much value, because natural language subjects are usually references to complicated things that do vastly more than a single thing. Sentences of this form are almost hyperbole, having a place in the grand scheme of society, but a noxious, toxic one.

 

Specifically, "consensus" means, etymologically, "thinking together". In practical usage, it refers to a state where people understand one another's meanings, even when disagreeing on specific points of them. Without understanding and pursuing consensus-forming, groups of people can't work on ideas or tangible things without being in full agreement with one another - an unusual and, in my experience, usually bad state that can be summarized as "cultish". In the extreme, the lack of consensus means we can't even agree on language, and are, tower of babel-like, utterly unable to communicate using it.

 

So, exactly the opposite of than shutting our minority views, consensus is vital for preserving them. This is a pretty conventional ;) view on the idea - see, for example, the wikipedia article Consensus decision-making. Note in this and most other thorough consideration of the concept that most of the criticism to consensus is not that it dis-empowers minorities, but that it gives them too much power via consensus blocking, etc.

 

 

'Consensus' is often used to (wrongly) turn theory into fact, in the public eye. Why is it so openly accepted & used today, even among the top of the scientific community?

The very concept of "fact" as a status superior to "theory" is ascientific - "facts" are mere empirical data, while theories are explanations. Scientifically, the latter is valued more than the former.

 

I agree that appeals to authority arguments are often, and wrongly, used to promote ideas lacking scientific validity - the old "4 out of 5 dentists recommend <X>" argument. However, I think your err badly in conflating appeal to authority arguments with consensus forming.

 

As a class, appeals to authority arguments are necessary when helping people reach decisions about knowledge domains in which they lack education and experience. When faced with a subject one doesn't understand, from science to the fine points of brick masonry, the only fast, practical way to make a decision with a good probability of success is to ask many people one believes do understand it, and follow the advice of the majority.

 

This, I think, is why scientists seeking to explain ideas unfamiliar to the general public often direct them to "the scientific consensus". Even fraudulent players, such as scientists employed by commercial interests to deceive the public, use this approach, in some cases actually forging documents indication that large numbers of experts agree with their position.

 

I only know the basics, and that started with the scientific method. It's wrong until it's right.

That's backwards. The scientific method assumes a hypothesis is right, until experiment shows it to be wrong.

 

But I'm seeing so much action today being taken with 'consensus' as the reason, that it's making me sick...

Consensus is not valid experimental data. Consensus arises from the interpretation of theory and data by individuals.

 

I'll hazard a guess at what you're driving at here abysterical - are you a global warming denialist :QuestionM

 

Someone please give me... "faith"... that in our 'enlightened' society, that science is science is science, free of external pressures, and that challenges can be made open and freely without fear of repercussion, 'consensus' be damned...

That would be nice, but humans don't work that way - we cajole and pressure, argue and entice - in short, we're social. Best, I think to address the "fear or repercussion" not by attempting to prevent other from criticizing you, but by learning not to experience fear when encountering criticism.