Consensus Science

[Iceberg]

I'm sure that that's true, to an extent.

As a case in point, look at the scientists who are trying to prove that the Sun has more of an effect on Earth's climate than the IPCC allow for. How do the mainstream scientists respond to them? They ridicule them, they tear them to pieces, both professionally and personally. And those outside the mainstream do the same thing in return.

CB

Taking the point concerning the IPCC, The IPCC is not there to show all the possible theories that pertain to Solar forcing. It's the job of the IPCC report to conclude given the mass of evidence available to it what the likely possible effects of solar forcing are.

If a scientist wants to prove that the sun has a different forcing effect than the likely boundaries in the IPCC reports, then regardless of consensus he need to show that what he is saying is plausible., the reason why so many of them are ridiculed is nothing to do with any consensus or anti consensus by-play. They are dismissed largely because they are wrong and what they are saying doesn't stack up.

It's always difficult to fight the consensus view in science and so it should be, but a consensus view isn't decided by dictate it's created, grown.

[Admiral_Bobski]

But where has any research been ridiculed?

Proper research that is - not the likes of Velikovsky or Neal Adams

Did I say that any research had been ridiculed? I said that scientists have been ridiculed.

Taking the point concerning the IPCC, The IPCC is not there to show all the possible theories that pertain to Solar forcing. It's the job of the IPCC report to conclude given the mass of evidence available to it what the likely possible effects of solar forcing are.

If a scientist wants to prove that the sun has a different forcing effect than the likely boundaries in the IPCC reports, then regardless of consensus he need to show that what he is saying is plausible., the reason why so many of them are ridiculed is nothing to do with any consensus or anti consensus by-play. They are dismissed largely because they are wrong and what they are saying doesn't stack up.

It's always difficult to fight the consensus view in science and so it should be, but a consensus view isn't decided by dictate it's created, grown.

But that's precisely the problem with consensus, do you not see?

I don't have time to respond fully now, but I shall be back later.

CB

[Iceberg]

I think I see, but I don't think I agree. If your proposing a theory or change in theory then whoever is performing the peer reviewing has a duty to see whether or not your theory is plausible, if it goes against a weight of other evidence then you had better hope that your evidence is more compelling. !

IT has to be this way otherwise every slightly plausible theory is given equal weight regardless of the amount of evidence to back it up.

I fully agree if your think your right and most of the other science produced on the subject is wrong it will be an uphill struggle.

The "consensus" though will occur naturally with or without a body to pronounce it, makes no difference.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Taking the point concerning the IPCC, The IPCC is not there to show all the possible theories that pertain to Solar forcing. It's the job of the IPCC report to conclude given the mass of evidence available to it what the likely possible effects of solar forcing are.

If a scientist wants to prove that the sun has a different forcing effect than the likely boundaries in the IPCC reports, then regardless of consensus he need to show that what he is saying is plausible., the reason why so many of them are ridiculed is nothing to do with any consensus or anti consensus by-play. They are dismissed largely because they are wrong and what they are saying doesn't stack up.

It's always difficult to fight the consensus view in science and so it should be, but a consensus view isn't decided by dictate it's created, grown.

No, a consensus view is decided by democracy.

Since when has science been a democracy?

Do you honestly feel that people aren't influenced by a statement of consensus?

Do you think that it is right to omit legitimate scientific research from a report just because it confuses the issue?

.............................

What do people think about this quote from Michael Crichton:

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[Iceberg]

No, a consensus view is decided by democracy.

Since when has science been a democracy?

Science has always been a meritocracy, it's not one scientist one vote, its about weight of evidence.

Do you honestly feel that people aren't influenced by a statement of consensus?

Yes people are influenced and rightly so.

Do you think that it is right to omit legitimate scientific research from a report just because it confuses the issue?

Yes, if the report aims to bring the most likely scientific research into an easily digestable form.

.............................

What do people think about this quote from Michael Crichton:

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

equally "Consensus is only challenged by either the genius or the jealous"

Are we complaining about a consensus being made, declared,used as an arguement to justify further science. I am not sure what invoked means in the above context, it is already there and used in the entire peer review process of science. People don't hind behind consensus, it just is.

The above would have worked better if I had split the questions and answers into different colours, sorry. :winky:

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm thinking that maybe this debate is missing the point. Perhaps what we should be aiming for is not absence of consensus, but rather absence of the Appeal to Popularity argument for saying something is true and/or dismissing other positions:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

[Admiral_Bobski]

No, a consensus view is decided by democracy.

Since when has science been a democracy?

Science has always been a meritocracy, it's not one scientist one vote, its about weight of evidence.

Actually, science is not a meritocracy.

In a meritocracy, society rewards (via wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy)

Science is not about "talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition" (it's not about the scientists) - it's about results. By that token, Quantum Mechanics must be wrong on the basis that Einstein - a man who had talent and competence, and certainly had phenomenal success in his past actions and against his competition - thought that it could not possibly be correct.

A meritocracy is about people, not about facts. Science is about facts.

Do you honestly feel that people aren't influenced by a statement of consensus?

Yes people are influenced and rightly so.

(I think I may have accidentally got your replies mixed up with Essan's - apologies. I thought you had said that consensus informs, but does not influence. Oopsie!)

But still, why do you think that it is right for people to be influenced by consensus? Surely that means that scientists (since they are people) will be influenced by the consensus, and surely science should not be subject to outside pressure like that?

Do you think that it is right to omit legitimate scientific research from a report just because it confuses the issue?

Yes, if the report aims to bring the most likely scientific research into an easily digestable form.

So good science - science that has not be rebutted or debunked or proven to be false - that does not fit in with the mainstream view should be left out? That science should not influence others? Why on Earth not?

.............................

What do people think about this quote from Michael Crichton:

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

equally "Consensus is only challenged by either the genius or the jealous"

Are we complaining about a consensus being made, declared,used as an arguement to justify further science. I am not sure what invoked means in the above context, it is already there and used in the entire peer review process of science. People don't hind behind consensus, it just is.

Yes, that is what we (or is it just "I"?!) am complaining about. Nothing is required to justify science. Why does any science need justification? Do you need to justify the pursuit of truth?

"Invoke" in the context used above is meant as using consensus as an argument in and of itself. This is especially true, with regards AGW, in politics and the media, but also in scientific circles. How many scientific reports do you read that mention consensus - I've seen quite a few. The MetOffice likes to use the IPCC and consensus as a fallback position, especially in their communications with the public. I've read several scientific papers that mention "the consensus". Later I shall see if I can trawl through some websites (NASA, NOAA, MetOffice and other scientific bodies) and science papers and copy and paste some uses of the word.

Consensus is used in the entire peer review process? What do you mean by that, exactly? Do you mean that the approval of a scientific paper is agreed upon by consensus, or do you mean that the peer review process is influenced by "The Consensus"? If it's the latter, especially, then there's a problem.

I agree, and have said several times before in this thread, that there is an unspoken consensus that exists. This thread is about the declaration of consensus as an established viewpoint, stated for the purposes of influencing others. In science - a subject which is not about opinions or moral judgements, but facts and truth - there is simply no place for this kind of thing.

CB

I'm thinking that maybe this debate is missing the point. Perhaps what we should be aiming for is not absence of consensus, but rather absence of the Appeal to Popularity argument for saying something is true and/or dismissing other positions:

http://www.nizkor.or...popularity.html

Well, yes, that's basically it. The "Scientific Consensus on AGW" is basically that which is being appealed to, especially outside the scientific community, but I can see that it is starting to creep into it.

"Consensus Science" is the catchy phrase, perhaps most famously used by Michael Crichton, to describe this appeal to popularity. I had hoped that I had been able to get this idea across in my first post, but clearly I failed (although I did post links at the bottom of that first post which I had hoped people would read before wading into this surprisingly emotive discussion).

CB

[Devonian]

...

"Consensus Science" is the catchy phrase, perhaps most famously used by Michael Crichton, to describe this appeal to popularity. I had hoped that I had been able to get this idea across in my first post, but clearly I failed (although I did post links at the bottom of that first post which I had hoped people would read before wading into this surprisingly emotive discussion).

CB

I see it as Crichton trying damage the reputation of science by portraying it in such a way.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

I see it as Crichton trying damage the reputation of science by portraying it in such a way.

That there might be scope for such 'spin' means that such reputation is, at best, in a very precarious position.

(I won't comment on Crichton since it was he, and his writing - particularly the mathematician in Jurassic Park, and the soliloquy (or should that be monologue?) relating to chaos theory - that inspired me, and changed my fortune, as a youngster)

[Admiral_Bobski]

I see it as Crichton trying damage the reputation of science by portraying it in such a way.

But you've (the mainstream) just attacked Crichton (the outsider) in exactly the way that I was describing before.

Crichton makes the effort, in his speech, to explain the problems of consensus science (along with what, exactly, consensus science is), but rather than rebutting his claims, he gets attacked in a personal manner.

And why would Crichton want to "damage the reputation of science"? He was a man who loved science, built a career round science (two careers, in fact - a medical one and an authoring one) and wanted to stand up for, and protect, the scientific method.

CB

PS - VP's post there could have been written word for word by me! I, too, was inspired by Crichton's compelling writing at an early age - starting with the Andromeda Strain and building up from there...

Edited March 20, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[VillagePlank]

But you've (the mainstream) just attacked Crichton (the outsider) in exactly the way that I was describing before.

Crichton makes the effort, in his speech, to explain the problems of consensus science (along with what, exactly, consensus science is), but rather than rebutting his claims, he gets attacked in a personal manner.

Even more so than that, CB.

In his book, The State of Fear, whilst many might not agree with his analysis, and that's fine, and I have no argument about that, he references the papers that support his stance, and he references the data that he uses to come to his conclusions.

Isn't that another prerequisite accounted for? The requisite of citation?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Even more so than that, CB.

In his book, The State of Fear, whilst many might not agree with his analysis, and that's fine, and I have no argument about that, he references the papers that support his stance, and he references the data that he uses to come to his conclusions.

Isn't that another prerequisite accounted for? The requisite of citation?

Furthermore, in the interests of objectivity he also references papers that don't support his stance. His exact words are:

"Environmental science is a contentious and intensely politicized field. No reader should assume that any author listed below agrees with the views I express in this book. Quite the contrary: many of them disagree strongly. I am presenting these references to assist those readers who would like to review my thinking and arrive at their own conclusions."

One of those references in particular I would like to check out:

" Matthews, Robert A. J. 'Facts versus factions: The use and abuse of subjectivity in scientific research.' In Morris, Rethinking Risk, pp. 247-82, a physicist argues 'the failure of the scientific community to take decisive action over the flaws in standard statistical methods, and the resulting waste of resources spent on futile attempts to replicate claims based on them, constitute a major scientific scandal.' The book also contains an impressive list of major scientific developments held back by the subjective prejudice of scientists. So much for the reliability of the 'consensus' of scientists."

CB

[VillagePlank]

You might be interested in this (DOC)

[Essan]

By coincidence, a discussion on BAUT about consensus in science (without reference to climate change :winky:)

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/101356-role-consensus-science.html

The consensus seems to be that consensus in science is normal and proper.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Even if that was true, its use as evidence results in some awkward reasoning- essentially a consensus is normal and proper, for a consensus suggests that it is!

There doesn't seem to be a particularly united consensus in that discussion- a set of differing viewpoints, but what I see is rather consistent with my overall stance on the subject.

A consensus is fine if it is purely the end result of an argument, i.e. different people look at evidence and reach a common conclusion. That in itself is often a strong line of evidence for the "consensus" being more likely to be right than alternative theories. But it turns improper when this consensus starts finding its way into the premises of these arguments.

For example, this would be a decent way to reach a consensus view:

1. One set of scientists surveys evidence X, and from it, reaches the conclusion that it supports A.

2. Another set of scientists surveys evidence Y, and this casts doubt upon the truth of A, but the evidence provided by Y is more contentious/less compelling than X and is believed by a much smaller percentage of scientists.

3. Therefore, the current state of the science suggests that A is likely to be true.

...and this would be a bad way:

1. We need to preach to the public that A is true, so that they take action accordingly.

2. Evidence X is consistent with A. Evidence Y casts doubt upon A.

3. Since we want to "speak with one voice" Evidence Y should be ignored as it confuses the issue.

4. A is true because X is true, and X is true because A is true.

As long as we don't lapse into "assuming the answer to prove the answer" I don't think consensus is a bad thing, as it suggests that a number of people independently reach similar conclusions from similar sets of evidence, but unfortunately all too often that does indeed happen, in which case it soon becomes a bad thing. Unfortunately some of Captain_Bobski's posts/links do provide a compelling case for the notion that some arguments of the latter kind have indeed found their way into the IPCC report, for example.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Thundery wintry showers

[Admiral_Bobski]

By coincidence, a discussion on BAUT about consensus in science (without reference to climate change )

http://www.bautforum...us-science.html

The consensus seems to be that consensus in science is normal and proper.

But it's not a scientific consensus, is it? It's a laymen's consensus based upon much the same reasoning that certain parties have discussed on this forum.

Also, as TWS quite correctly points out, it's not even much of a consensus. There are several posters whose views tally with my own fairly well, like Ken G. I don't agree with his comment in his first post, "science is a human endeavor, so has subjective elements," because I think that science should not have those subjective elements. It's not about balancing the subjective with the objective - science, at its purest, should be totally objective. Other than that one comment, though, he seems pretty much bang on the money.

CB

[Devonian]

But you've (the mainstream) just attacked Crichton (the outsider) in exactly the way that I was describing before.

Crichton makes the effort, in his speech, to explain the problems of consensus science (along with what, exactly, consensus science is), but rather than rebutting his claims, he gets attacked in a personal manner.

By me? Where? Where did I attack him not his view/words/opinion?

And why would Crichton want to "damage the reputation of science"? He was a man who loved science, built a career round science (two careers, in fact - a medical one and an authoring one) and wanted to stand up for, and protect, the scientific method.

So, why not offer alternative science then rather that tilt at 'consensus science'?

[Admiral_Bobski]

By me? Where? Where did I attack him not his view/words/opinion?

You accused him of trying to damage the reputation of science - that would be a deliberate attempt on his part to discredit by underhanded means. Is that not an attack on the character of the man?

So, why not offer alternative science then rather that tilt at 'consensus science'?

His objections to "consensus science" were not limited to AGW, as he clearly says in the speech to which I linked in my first post. You suggest that he offers up alternative theories to every branch of science? Would it not make more sense to try to stop the spread of something he viewed as pernicious before any more damage was done, or is it more sensible to follow consensus science around, applying bandages to the cuts and scrapes after they happen?

Indeed, this thread has become more about AGW and the IPCC than I had intended it to. My intention was to look at the mechanics of consensus science in general, but unfortunately the easiest example to refer to is AGW. I could read up on eugenics and secondary smoking and nuclear winter and offer similar arguments, but we are all familiar with the arguments of AGW and so those are the examples we use.

CB

[Devonian]

You accused him of trying to damage the reputation of science - that would be a deliberate attempt on his part to discredit by underhanded means. Is that not an attack on the character of the man?

Maybe, if I'm wrong. Perhaps I've learnt, from the vicious attacks on Mann, Jones and the rest, that mud is thrown in the hope some sticks??? Or what's sauce for the goose...

His objections to "consensus science" were not limited to AGW, as he clearly says in the speech to which I linked in my first post. You suggest that he offers up alternative theories to every branch of science? Would it not make more sense to try to stop the spread of something he viewed as pernicious before any more damage was done, or is it more sensible to follow consensus science around, applying bandages to the cuts and scrapes after they happen?

Indeed, this thread has become more about AGW and the IPCC than I had intended it to. My intention was to look at the mechanics of consensus science in general, but unfortunately the easiest example to refer to is AGW. I could read up on eugenics and secondary smoking and nuclear winter and offer similar arguments, but we are all familiar with the arguments of AGW and so those are the examples we use.

CB

I refer you to your initial post's fourth paragraph...

[Admiral_Bobski]

Maybe, if I'm wrong. Perhaps I've learnt, from the vicious attacks on Mann, Jones and the rest, that mud is thrown in the hope some sticks??? Or what's sauce for the goose...

I refer you to your initial post's fourth paragraph...

Should the intention not be to rise above such things, rather than start basting ganders?

[Devonian]

Should the intention not be to rise above such things, rather than start basting ganders?

Yes.

And that applies to Chrichton, AND Mann, Jones and the rest?

[Devonian]

Moving on somewhat, I wonder what is science and can there be only one right way for science to be done, be proven, shown?

I do think there are immutable laws we have discovered, and realities. I don't think we'll discover the speed of light we have is wrong, or that copper sulphate isn't CuSO4(or whatever it is), or that the forces of gravity on our planet isn't that figure I forget. But I do wonder if there has to be a set way to find these things out bar that they can be shown by logic, or by example, or by repetition, or by honest endeavour - which is where we get back to consensus, or Popper or whatever. I wonder if discussing such things (and I don't mean to imply this is your purpose CB) might be as deadish end at best and a deliberate distraction at worst.

Who will care if there was a consensus about AGW in the 2010 if the climate is 3C warmer in 2100, otoh, if it's no warmer will that mean the consensus now was a bad thing or just wrong? Isn't it evidence, data, observation and the rest that, in the end, show if a science is right?

[Essan]

But it's not a scientific consensus, is it?

No, that's exactly what it is.

The scientific consensus is that geologic events and features can be explained by plate tectonics.

The scientific consensus is that there are numerous as yet undiscovered bodies orbiting the sun in the Kuiper belt.

The scientific consensus is that over time species evolve into new species.

The scientific consensus is that increasing atmospheric C02 will lead to increased temps.

The scientific consensus is that if many scientists have tested a theory over a long period of time and failed to falsify it, then that theory is likely to be correct - notwithstanding the possiblity of totally new data overturning that view in the future.

Where the are two cometing theories that equally explain observations, there may not be a scientific consensus. But in such cases, only one theory can be right and in time data will show which it is.

However, just because you don;t want the scientific consensus to be right, and firmly believe in an expanding earth, then that does not mean the scientific consensus does not exist, should not exist, or is wrong. You might however ask yourself why for decades scientists studying the subject have reached a consensus that differs from your opinion.

[Admiral_Bobski]

No, that's exactly what it is.

I think you may have misunderstood me - the "it's not a scientific consensus" remark was about the "consensus" on the forum Dev linked to.

And you're still missing the point about this discussion: yes, there is a consensus about plate tectonics and so on and so forth, but where is the established body which has specifically assessed the evidence and declared that consensus.

There is no such body, because there is no need to declare it! Do you not see, after all these posts?

However, just because you don;t want the scientific consensus to be right, and firmly believe in an expanding earth, then that does not mean the scientific consensus does not exist, should not exist, or is wrong. You might however ask yourself why for decades scientists studying the subject have reached a consensus that differs from your opinion.

I was going to write a detailed rebuttal to this paragraph, but I realise that there is no point. You still haven't figured out what this discussion is about, you still can't seem to grasp the ramifications of an official declaration of consensus. You still bang on as though I have said "there is no consensus" when in fact I have said quite the opposite.

If you're not going to read what other people write, and take the time to digest and understand it, then just don't bother.

Moving on somewhat, I wonder what is science and can there be only one right way for science to be done, be proven, shown?

I do think there are immutable laws we have discovered, and realities. I don't think we'll discover the speed of light we have is wrong, or that copper sulphate isn't CuSO4(or whatever it is), or that the forces of gravity on our planet isn't that figure I forget. But I do wonder if there has to be a set way to find these things out bar that they can be shown by logic, or by example, or by repetition, or by honest endeavour - which is where we get back to consensus, or Popper or whatever. I wonder if discussing such things (and I don't mean to imply this is your purpose CB) might be as deadish end at best and a deliberate distraction at worst.

Who will care if there was a consensus about AGW in the 2010 if the climate is 3C warmer in 2100, otoh, if it's no warmer will that mean the consensus now was a bad thing or just wrong? Isn't it evidence, data, observation and the rest that, in the end, show if a science is right?

I'd like to say, first off, that I started this thread partly because there is no new scientific evidence being discussed at the moment. I said a while ago that I don't have anything more to say, and that I'm just repeating myself, but I'm more than happy to engage in scientific discussions that bring something new to the table.

In the absence of that I thought it might be interesting to explore the idea of consensus science. I appreciate what you are saying, Dev, but please don't think that I started this just to detract from the scientific argument - it's simply an interesting sideline while I wait for something new to talk about! And, of course, I would like to reiterate that I am not claiming that the consensus is wrong (and I'm certainly not saying that it's wrong just because it is consensus).

Having said that, I would say that there is only one way to do science: without restrictions.

The statement of consensus on a subject (be it AGW, eugenics or whatever) runs the very real risk of imposing, or even just implying, restrictions - channelling the science along "approved" lines, and thereby perhaps ignoring, or not properly studying, important pieces of the puzzle because of some presumption that they are not relevant. I'm not suggesting necessarily a deliberate attempt to control science, but just the subconscious, subliminal effect on humans caused by a declaration of "the state of the science" which is, by its very nature, incomplete.

CB

[VillagePlank]

The scientific consensus is that if many scientists have tested a theory over a long period of time and failed to falsify it, then that theory is likely to be correct - notwithstanding the possiblity of totally new data overturning that view in the future.

My scientific theory is that there is a God since the existence of dark matter, dark energy, and dark flow proves, by induction, His existence.

I don't know whether that is the case but good luck on falsifying that one.

(On a more polite note - lack of falsification is not evidence to the contrary, nor does it change the probability of something being either true or false - that would be tantamount to a kind of reciprocal gamblers fallacy where, because you haven't seen six thrown on a set of dice all evening, then surely it's turn must come soon)

Edited March 21, 2010 by VillagePlank