"The scientific consensus of climate change." Do people realize that science is factual, not majority rule? A "consensus" means nothing. [—] Science is factual, indisputable. It's not "science" if the conclusion is majority based. "Scientific consensus" is agenda pushing rhetoric.
8 comments
" Do people realize that science is factual, not majority rule?"
A consensus is not meaningful in the FACTS of science. But the interpretation of the facts is not the same thing. Interpretations, when done by the experts in that discipline, may have variations. In that situation scientists can reach a consensus even though there may be a few dissidents.
Note: I said SCIENTISTS can reach a consensus. Climatologists reached a consensus on climate change, just like geneticists and comparative-anatomists reached a consensus on evolution. But the consensus of non-scientists is nothing but an uninformed opinion, and is meaningless.
She has a point. I remember hearing a story from my earth sciences professor (ironically enough) from his own days as a grad student. At this time, there a major debate in geology as to the validity of plate tectonics. A lot of the lower-level members of the faculty, in particular, were debating about whether to pursue research in that direction (the older members were, as is usually the case, kind of set in their ways). They ended up holding a meeting, off-hours, in which they voted and decided that yes, they did on the balance, think that the evidence supported the new theory. When my professor mentioned it to his advisor, he was incensed - not because he thought their conclusion was wrong, but because that was not how science should be done . And he was right. Of course we know now that plate tectonics is the best theory to explain and predict the observations we make... but at that time, in that place, they had no business voting on it.
We have to let the evidence speak for itself, and sometimes that means waiting to be certain. We shouldn't be driven to our opinions simply because they're popular.
@Jamaican Castle
That's only somewhat true. But the OP (and I have the feeling you too to a certain degree) mix up the meanings of consensus in science and consensus as in multiple people voting for a certain thing and the majority winning out. Consensus in science isn't for example a vote, it is created through the exchange of information, debate, peer review etc. That doesn't mean though that it explains everything or that scientists are declaring some kind of dogma. Let's say evolution: Time and time again the empirical evidence has shown that evolution exists. No scientist denies that because denying it would mean going against all empirical data found until now. The mechanisms of evolution and their importance are a whole different story though. If a scientist would find the proof against evolution he wouldn't be an outcast, he would be the greatest biologist of our generation.
Now towards global warming: The data is pretty clear on the fact that since the industrial revolution, earth has been heating up significantly. Other possible factors besides the release of greenhouse gases have been ruled out (mostly, I will get to that). That consensus has been reached multiple decades ago, not because some scientists conspired to make it so, but because the data we have supported the theory more and more. The exact symptoms of the climate change are far more unpredictable though. The strategy of people who have an interest in denying climate change is too create the illusion for the public that there is no consensus and that many scientists are against this interpretation, although that isn't the case at all. Since science is only falsifiable, not verifiable, and most people don't know exactly how science works, that's rather easy to do sadly. The problem is that climate change is one of these things that we don't have much time left to deal with anymore. You will never get absolute proof that climate change is happening, asking for it after so many years of evidence for it is only another dealying tactic (similar to what is used by creationists, often ridiculed as the "god of gaps" tactic). We have to do it now or we'll have to deal with much more severe consequences. That's why the OPs point is so idiotic and your story has only to do with modern day climate science to a small degree in my opinion.
And how, exactly, do you propose to determine what is and is not factual? Perhaps we could, say, ask a whole lot of scientists and see what they all agree on...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
