Consensus Science

[Admiral_Bobski]

Nobody has yet been willing or able to explain how or why consensus science can be a good thing.

This topic hasn't aroused the kind of interest that I was expecting or hoping for, so I should probably let it die a death...but I'm curious as to why people think that consensus science is good.

Anyone?

CB

[VillagePlank]

Nobody has yet been willing or able to explain how or why consensus science can be a good thing.

This topic hasn't aroused the kind of interest that I was expecting or hoping for, so I should probably let it die a death...but I'm curious as to why people think that consensus science is good.

Anyone?

CB

Well, Devil's adovocate position, and all that, is that consensus science does has a heritage within the science (and mathematical) body; that being the Wisdom of Crowds

There is also the notion of qualified opinion - which is a subset of consensus science, but still suffers from the same logical flaws.

That's the best I can muster, I'm afraid. I'd be interested to hear the opinion of those who said 'Yes' as that's quite a bold statement to make - I am sure that it is based on qualified opinion, which is a cheap, nasty, dirty road to take, since it holds it's basis on nothing more than an illusion of social coherency and not much else.

[Admiral_Bobski]

That's true VP. I think I've confused the issue a bit by just calling it "consensus science" when the real objection lies not within the fact that there are consensus in science but rather in this new phenomenon of establishing committees whose sole purpose it is to assess the science and then make a pronouncement on what the consensus is (what we earlier defined as "official consensus").

I think it's the formal statement of what the consensus is that is the dangerous thing. After all, consensus just happens. Consensus is the belief of the majority of the community - there is a consensus on any divisive issue, even if it is not made clear. There is a consensus, for example, that there is a God. The majority of people on this planet believe in some form of personal God, be they Christian, Muslim or whatever. There is no official pronouncement on the existence of God (and, of course, just because this consensus exists this is no proof of whether or not there actually is a God).

If a committee was formed that officially stated that the consensus was that there was a God, how would that make atheists feel? How much more scornful would the majority be of the atheistic minority (and vice versa, of course)? And how easy would it be for the believing majority to fall back on the old "well, there's a consensus" argument?

CB

[VillagePlank]

Yeah, CB.

I find it immensely surprising that some people find it very difficult to come to terms with two concepts:

(i) That it is absurd to assume that quantity means something is valid.

(ii) That it is even worse to assume qualification automatically verifies a conclusion.

We all know that science is littered with counter examples. Some, indeed, that are very extreme. Still, some people voted yes, and I'd like to know why.

I am still utterly convinced that I am missing something important! If there is not anything more important than discussing the methodology of the arrival of a conclusion, then I'd like to know what that is too.

Something meaty to engage in, I think - but no one seems to want to do it.

Edited March 15, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

That's true VP. I think I've confused the issue a bit by just calling it "consensus science" when the real objection lies not within the fact that there are consensus in science but rather in this new phenomenon of establishing committees whose sole purpose it is to assess the science and then make a pronouncement on what the consensus is (what we earlier defined as "official consensus").

I think it's the formal statement of what the consensus is that is the dangerous thing. After all, consensus just happens. Consensus is the belief of the majority of the community - there is a consensus on any divisive issue, even if it is not made clear. There is a consensus, for example, that there is a God. The majority of people on this planet believe in some form of personal God, be they Christian, Muslim or whatever. There is no official pronouncement on the existence of God (and, of course, just because this consensus exists this is no proof of whether or not there actually is a God).

If a committee was formed that officially stated that the consensus was that there was a God, how would that make atheists feel? How much more scornful would the majority be of the atheistic minority (and vice versa, of course)? And how easy would it be for the believing majority to fall back on the old "well, there's a consensus" argument?

CB

CB, wrt your previous post, I think there were some good replies on the first page?

I don't think a scientific consensus is the same as a religious one and (since this is a climate forum) and I don't see the AGW consensus as being handed down or official, just that there is, well, a consensus amongst climate scientists about AGW so they tell it how it is.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Devonian

[laserguy]

Something meaty to engage in, I think - but no one seems to want to do it.

Don't look at me - I voted "bad"! Off to engage with a bacon butty and several pints of Old Toss.....

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, wrt your previous post, I think there were some good replies on the first page?

I don't think a scientific consensus is the same as a religious one and (since this is a climate forum) and I don't see the AGW consensus as being handed down or official, just that there is, well, a consensus amongst climate scientists about AGW so they tell it how it is.

Devonian, the IPCC have declared that there is a scientific consensus on the basis of their remit:

The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.

The IPCC have declared consensus on the basis of a risk assessment. The fact that there is a consensus is a separate issue, as I thought I made clear in my previous post.

Yes, a scientific consensus is different from a religious one, yet the official pronouncement of a consensus has the same effect in both cases - it encourages exclusionism and deferral to a higher authority.

CB

[VillagePlank]

Yes - CB! It is a risk assessment of the consequences of said collection of scientific papers. Which means the summary must, in and of itself, be considered a judgement call, and not a scientific one. Whilst I agree that it is strongly based upon peer-review science (that's another discussion) it is for all to see, a political document. It is curious that a full circle has been completed and some scientists have started cited the IPCC documents in their own papers. I think that's a very bad move.

And, that, I think, might be the root evil of the matter. If there were a poll that had questions such as should we destroy the planet, should we be laissez-faire forever with reference to the biosphere, should we kill whales for, apparently, no real reason, or should we just burn stuff with scant regard to any potential consequence (the list goes on and on)?

I'd bet that the bias towards anathema to all of these questions would be massive.

Edited March 16, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Devonian, the IPCC have declared that there is a scientific consensus on the basis of their remit:

The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.

The IPCC have declared consensus on the basis of a risk assessment. The fact that there is a consensus is a separate issue, as I thought I made clear in my previous post.

Yes, a scientific consensus is different from a religious one, yet the official pronouncement of a consensus has the same effect in both cases - it encourages exclusionism and deferral to a higher authority.

CB

Surely it just states reality? What else could the IPCC do other than to report there is what there: is a consensus (not unanimty) amongst climate scientists?

What would you have the IPCC say instead?

[VillagePlank]

Surely it just states reality? What else could the IPCC do other than to report there is what there: is a consensus (not unanimty) amongst climate scientists?

What would you have the IPCC say instead?

No, Dev, it doesn't state reality. It appears (to me) and I quite accept I could be wrong, here, that such and such is the case with a given degree of probability.

How were the probability figures derived? Where is the method that describes the process?

[Devonian]

No, Dev, it doesn't state reality. It appears (to me) and I quite accept I could be wrong, here, that such and such is the case with a given degree of probability.

That's fine, I just wonder what CB (and you since you have a different view to mine) think the reality is - if it's not to be described as a consensus?

How were the probability figures derived? Where is the method that describes the process?

Sorry, I'm not sure what probability figure you refer to here?

[VillagePlank]

That's fine, I just wonder what CB (and you since you have a different view to mine) think the reality is - if it's not to be described as a consensus?

Good question.

I don't know.

It could well be the case that politicised output from the IPCC is largely correct (I think that it is) but I can't tell that is is, and I certainly can't verify that it is. And, I don't think that's because I have a room temperature IQ, either.

Sorry, I'm not sure what probability figure you refer to here?

That such and such will occur with nth probability - it's all over the IPCC report??

[Admiral_Bobski]

Surely it just states reality? What else could the IPCC do other than to report there is what there: is a consensus (not unanimty) amongst climate scientists?

What would you have the IPCC say instead?

I think you're still missing the point.

What else could the IPCC do other than report there is what there is? It could do nothing.

Put it another way: why does the IPCC need to define what the consensus is?

What purpose does the statement of consensus serve?

I'm not trying to say that "consensus science is wrong" or anything like that.

I'm not suggesting that the IPCC are claiming a consensus when, in fact, there is none.

What I am arguing is that the official declaration of consensus leads to detrimental knock-on effects for science.

The declaration of consensus narrows the mind - it establishes a framework for investigative science, and anything outside that framework is necessarily irrelevant. It stifles debate. It makes it that much harder for people investigating outside that framework to be heard, and that stifles debate and limits (or at least slows down) the advance of science.

So, it is not the word "consensus" that I have an issue with. Nor is it the fact that there is a consensus. It is the act of declaring consensus that is the problem.

CB

[Devonian]

I think you're still missing the point.

What else could the IPCC do other than report there is what there is? It could do nothing.

Put it another way: why does the IPCC need to define what the consensus is?

What purpose does the statement of consensus serve?

I'm not trying to say that "consensus science is wrong" or anything like that.

I'm not suggesting that the IPCC are claiming a consensus when, in fact, there is none.

What I am arguing is that the official declaration of consensus leads to detrimental knock-on effects for science.

The declaration of consensus narrows the mind - it establishes a framework for investigative science, and anything outside that framework is necessarily irrelevant. It stifles debate. It makes it that much harder for people investigating outside that framework to be heard, and that stifles debate and limits (or at least slows down) the advance of science.

So, it is not the word "consensus" that I have an issue with. Nor is it the fact that there is a consensus. It is the act of declaring consensus that is the problem.

CB

They should have kept quiet about the reality there is a consensus so that those who think otherwise aren't stifled?

Edited March 16, 2010 by Devonian

[Essan]

I believe the general scientific consensus is that life first emerged on earth some 3,500 million years ago and that homonids first appeared in Africa several million years ago :unsure:

Within the framework of that consensus there are many areas of dispute.

The general consensus amongst astronomers is that Earth itself formed from a ring of debris around a proto-sun - which itself formed form the remnants of a supernova. Of course, this may be wrong and many continue to study the subject in the hope of finding new data that maybe changes that consensus.

Science is all about consensus.

However, I question whether there is really a consensus view that the Chicxulub impact killed the dinosaurs - I rather suspect the current consensus is that the impact was a more significant contributory factor than the Deccan Traps eruptions. And I know one or two disagree with even that consensus.

However, I'm not aware of any climatologists who do not accept the consensus that human activity is having an impact on climate?

[Devonian]

Good question.

I don't know.

It could well be the case that politicised output from the IPCC is largely correct (I think that it is) but I can't tell that is is, and I certainly can't verify that it is. And, I don't think that's because I have a room temperature IQ, either.

This is getting back to proof - I'm not going there again because it wont exist until after the event (if then even)

That such and such will occur with nth probability - it's all over the IPCC report??

Ahh, definded at the begining of the TAR I think, or was it the previous one. Again, what scientists think, not, oh dear..., proven (why does the wink emoticon look mad :unsure: ).

Edit: ah haa - this is it !

Edited March 16, 2010 by Devonian

[Essan]

Of course, if there is no need for a consensus it implies that there is absolutely no doubt. Maybe some would rather the IPCC said that? :unsure:

[Admiral_Bobski]

They should have kept quiet about the reality there is a consensus so that those who think otherwise aren't stifled?

You're trying to turn this into the wrong argument entirely.

It's not a case of "they should have kept quiet". The point is why did they need to say anything at all?!

The majority of people think that smoking is bad, while a minority thinks it is good.

Why does that need to be said?

It doesn't. An official analysis, conclusion and presentation of this fact would only serve to give the majority the moral high ground, and the only reason there is to gain that is to shut the minority up.

Do you not see?

CB

Of course, if there is no need for a consensus it implies that there is absolutely no doubt. Maybe some would rather the IPCC said that?

You are also arguing the wrong point - I am not denying that there is a consensus, among scientists, that AGW is real and correct. A Consensus would not imply that there is absolutely no doubt, because even unanimous agreement counts as consensus. Edit - that last bit didn't make sense, but neither did the comment I was responding to. You can't say "if there's no need for consensus" because, as I say, consensus just is - nobody decides to have consensus: consensus is just the word we use to define the majority view of something. There is always a majority view in any situation, in any question, in any subject that people think about...

Consensus always exists, whether spoken or unspoken.

This thread is (supposed to be) about the analysis of data for the purpose of determining where the consensus lies, the derived conclusion and the presentation of that conclusion, the sole purpose of which is not scientific but rather only to prove the majority opinion, as if that really matters from a scientific perspective.

CB

EDIT - I'm starting to wonder if this discussion is too abstract for most people, or if they are making it more abstract than it needs to be...

Edited March 16, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[Essan]

So what's your point then? That because it's obvious the scientific consensus is that human activity is causing global warming there is no need to say so?

[Thundery wintry showers]

My bottom line on it is: if people are merely pointing out that a strong consensus of opinion exists, then fine, but if they then use it as a manipulative tactic to stifle debate and protect the "status quo" from being challenged, then that's a very bad thing.

Even in the realms of politics, where decisions usually have to be made on the basis of majority rule, it is unhealthy to carry the "majority rule" to the level of groupthink.

[Admiral_Bobski]

So what's your point then? That because it's obvious the scientific consensus is that human activity is causing global warming there is no need to say so?

No.

No, that's not my point.

No, my point is that the act of decreeing consensus on an issue is a cheap tactic deliberately used to stifle broad debate.

I broadly agree with TWS, in that a casual comment on the fact that there is a consensus is okay (to an extent - if that comment is being made as an observation then fine, but if it is used as a deferral to authority then it is not fine).

The point is that the IPCC's (and the Chicxulub impact team's) whole purpose was to determine where the consensus lay so as to define the parameters of the debate. Anything which counters the AGW argument is not part of the consensus and, as such, is not a part of the debate.

People have commented, for example, on the LI thread that they don't think that the LI can be correct because it flies in the face of consensus opinion. This is a clear deferral to authority, and the whole reason this kind of comment can be made is because of the officially-declared state of the consensus.

Fundamentally, consensus is a democratic concept - the consensus is the belief of the majority.

Science is not a democracy - either something happens or it doesn't, and no amount of belief or opinion changes that fact.

Note well that I am not saying that consensus science is necessarily wrong, but rather that consensus science is necessarily bad.

CB

[Devonian]

My bottom line on it is: if people are merely pointing out that a strong consensus of opinion exists, then fine, but if they then use it as a manipulative tactic to stifle debate and protect the "status quo" from being challenged, then that's a very bad thing.

I agree, how would one tell the difference?

[Devonian]

No.

No, that's not my point.

No, my point is that the act of decreeing consensus on an issue is a cheap tactic deliberately used to stifle broad debate.

Is there to be any debate about that or are you telling us :winky:

I broadly agree with TWS, in that a casual comment on the fact that there is a consensus is okay (to an extent - if that comment is being made as an observation then fine, but if it is used as a deferral to authority then it is not fine).

The point is that the IPCC's (and the Chicxulub impact team's) whole purpose was to determine where the consensus lay so as to define the parameters of the debate. Anything which counters the AGW argument is not part of the consensus and, as such, is not a part of the debate.

I don't think there is any evidence of this tbh.

People have commented, for example, on the LI thread that they don't think that the LI can be correct because it flies in the face of consensus opinion. This is a clear deferral to authority, and the whole reason this kind of comment can be made is because of the officially-declared state of the consensus.

Have they, heck did I

Fundamentally, consensus is a democratic concept - the consensus is the belief of the majority.

Science is not a democracy - either something happens or it doesn't, and no amount of belief or opinion changes that fact.

Note well that I am not saying that consensus science is necessarily wrong, but rather that consensus science is necessarily bad.

CB

Well, I agree in that over on sceptic blogs the overwhealing consensus science is that AGW science is 100% wrong. But that doesn't mean AGW science is wrong does it...

So, what changes a science is not debate over the word consensus but new evidence (or not). But if it's consensus, and the 'imposing' of that, that matters then we could see that if the LI becomes widely accepted by science then a simply way to oppose it would be to say 'Oh, the LI is the consensus position now, that consensus is being used to stifle debate'

So I guess we come back to how one would tell if consensus was being used to stifle and not to inform???

Edited March 16, 2010 by Devonian

[jethro]

What about funding for research? I imagine money is in short supply and getting funding for a study is fairly difficult; isn't it logical that funding will be easier (comparitively speaking) for a study which is within the bounds of the consensus rather than outside of it, and possibly considered unimportant as a consequence?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Is there to be any debate about that or are you telling us

ha ha

I don't think there is any evidence of this tbh.

I'll reprint this from the IPCC website:

The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.

By declaring consensus on the basis of a study which determined what was "relevant" for the AGW risk assessment, they defined the parameters of the debate. There's your evidence in black and white.

Have they, heck did I

I didn't want to name any names...

Well, I agree in that over on sceptic blogs the overwhealing consensus science is that AGW science is 100% wrong. But that doesn't mean AGW science is wrong does it...

Information on the skeptic blogs is, by its very definition, not consensus science - if it's skeptical science, and the skeptics are in the minority, then it cannot be defined as "consensus science". Of course, that doesn't make it right (which is not what this debate was about in the first place, so I fail to understand the relevance of this comment).

So, what changes a science is not debate over the word consensus but new evidence (or not). But if it's consensus, and the 'imposing' of that, that matters then we could see that if the LI becomes widely accepted by science then a simply way to oppose it would be to say 'Oh, the LI is the consensus position now, that consensus is being used to stifle debate'

So I guess we come back to how one would tell if consensus was being used to stifle and not to inform???

Yes, that would be one way to oppose it - a way that I would not agree with. As I have said, several times now, I am not arguing that the science of AGW must be wrong because it's consensus science: I am arguing that, regardless of whether AGW science is right or wrong, consensus science is not science and has no place in science.

A quick question for you: how does the consensus inform anyone, and what does it inform them of?

CB