13 May 2011, 1:21 pm
13 May 2011, 2:14 pm
13 May 2011, 2:19 pm
13 May 2011, 2:45 pm
13 May 2011, 3:02 pm
13 May 2011, 3:08 pm
13 May 2011, 3:23 pm
13 May 2011, 3:53 pm
13 May 2011, 3:56 pm
13 May 2011, 4:00 pm
13 May 2011, 4:48 pm
13 May 2011, 4:51 pm
13 May 2011, 4:56 pm
13 May 2011, 4:58 pm
Philologos wrote:
LKL wrote:
What [amongst any set of scientists you care to talk about] would constitute consensus,
I suppose empirical studies whose results can be repeated independently again and again and again would be the strongest guarantor that the consensus of discipline X is correct.
Of course, there's no way to do that in all facets of science, so theories are promulgated that fit the evidence available, and when new evidence is presented the theories are modified in light of such evidence. I believe Stephen Hawking has recanted some of his previously held beliefs regarding black holes as new evidence has come in, that sort of thing. Obviously no one can as yet grab a black hole, test its properties back in the lab, and then wait for their results to duplicated at another lab doing the same thing. But, as I understand it, there's no real consensus in physics regarding "String Theory," which I won't even pretend to understand. But that doesn't mean I want to drive across a bridge designed and built by someone who has rejected Physics in toto, since physicists as a group can't come to a consensus on string theory.
I feel sort of the same way about evolution. Just because, say, the late Stephen Jay Gould and Steven Pinker went at it hammer and tongs for about a decade, disagreeing on a wide range of issues, often quite publicly and even taking the debate down to a personal level, the theory still fits the facts better than anything else, even if large areas are still wide open to debate.
FWIW, when scientists screw up, it might take a while, but hopefully the truth will eventually come out. The case that springs to mind is Piltdown Man (a hoax) and Homo Erectus (a real fossil). Yet the latter took about 20 years to gain acceptance while the former was immediately accepted, and not "officially" rejected until the 1940s. The discoverer of Homo Erectus was Dutch, found the fossil in Indonesia and had few social connections. The "discoverers" of Piltdown Man were socially prominent Englishmen, connected academically and socially, and though at least one was a dupe the other might have been responsible for it.
Or, more recently, having heartburn go from "lifestyle choice" toH. pylori (link) bacteria.
Quote:
AND what would that consensus imply for future developments in that field?
Maybe they should all do what Anthropology did, or at any rate the American Anthropological Association, and drop that pesky "science" word from their mission statement?
Quote:
Anthropology a Science? Statement Deepens a Rift
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: December 9, 2010
Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.
The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists, physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members of the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights.
continued at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/scien ... ef=science
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: December 9, 2010
Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.
The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists, physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members of the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights.
continued at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/scien ... ef=science
13 May 2011, 6:20 pm
13 May 2011, 7:12 pm
Philologos wrote:
LKL wrote:
I think that 'majority' occurs at >50%, 'wide agreement' can be said to occur at, say, 70-80% of a given field, 'preponderance' at 80-90%, and consensus might start at 90%. However, a 90% consensus still means that there may be pretty significant unanswered questions or anomalous data with a given theory. When you hit 95% or above, the remaining doubters are either in the pay of some industry, conspiracy theorists, cowed intellectually by some religion, or geniuses who will found the next paradigm.
I assume you are pulling the figures out of your head. Exact % depends on the field - Ithink for linguists consesnsus would be lower.
But you left out of your list of exceptions the crackpots [not all crackpots, let me tell you, are religious or conspiracy minded - some are just to varying degrees bonkers] and the contrarians who have doubts but have no idea what might be a better approach.
Yes. I think those figures work for biology (where my expertise lies), but as other posters have noted, other fields have different standards.
And I absolutely agree that there are many more types of crackpot than I listed.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Scientists debunk themselves into a corner Volume 2 |
06 Jun 2025, 4:35 am |
| Scientists Intrigued By a Bridge Of Dark Matter In A Huge |
29 Apr 2025, 4:06 pm |
| Scientists Find Rocks Dating Back To 4.16 Billion Years In |
03 Jul 2025, 11:05 pm |
