Prove consensus exists among scientists
Hey, MasterHedi - seems I have not noticed your monicker for a bit, I was trying to remember your name to compare it with another poster of not dissimilar style.
So - THIS IS NOT a disprove the existence thread.
Please prove [assertion will not wash] that there is consensus among scientists.
In the discussion you will specify your understanding of the terms "consensus" and "scientist". You are free to adduce any evidence including your personal observation. Observe the decencies of debate and cut off rabbit - chicken after the third repetition.
That is an intriguing and tempting statement with which I might agree - or possibly go further.
From my point of view, the more ferment, the better the loaf coming out of the crucible which is a horrible way to mangle metaphor.
Yet there is a lot of talk in the air, not about a preponderance of data, but about consensus in the commmunity.
Anyway, I am going to TRY to listen not blab for a while.
If the overwhelming majority of papers on a subject suggest A is true, and a significant number of major scientific orgs says A is the likely answer, then most people accept that A is the consensus view. Consensus isnt conferred by a royal ceremony, it's simply a term defined as: General or widespread agreement.
Creationists have been claiming for 100 years that "any minute now" evolution will be sunk. They are free to say that but, much like the return of Jesus, it hasn't happened.. It's just a wish and a prayer. Global warming denialists are in most cases using the same arguments (distortions, quote mining, selective information, etc). Denialism is a racket meant to sell books and ideology, much like creationism. They hope the science and consensus shifts in their direction, but it hasn't happened.
That's one reason why they are so intent on looking for conspiracy. Creationists believe in conspiracies too.
So - THIS IS NOT a disprove the existence thread.
Please prove [assertion will not wash] that there is consensus among scientists.
In the discussion you will specify your understanding of the terms "consensus" and "scientist". You are free to adduce any evidence including your personal observation. Observe the decencies of debate and cut off rabbit - chicken after the third repetition.
I don't really see what you want. I mean, all mainstream biologists (aka: working at a reputable university on something directly related to biology) accept evolution is by far the most likely way for complex life to have arisen. The vast majority of climatologists accept that global warming is happening and most agree it is probably anthropogenic. You just have to look in the research papers and at the position of scientific organisations to see that, as simon_says said. So yeah, consensus exists.
YES!! ! Someone was listening.
I suspected / expected that a preponderance - not consensus - of those responding would assume I was talking about and cryptotalking down evolution or global warming. Since I am known to be Christian and loudly proclaim that I am apolitical I expected it to default to evolution.
I asked myself, will anyone stop to think that scientists are a large and very mixed group? That even if there is consensus among biometeorologists on the rorigins of bridfal showers they will disagree on Groundhog Day?
Should I mention it? Naaah, I said, wait and see.
And there we are, thread barely started and you saw it.
Good.
Okay. Let us retask the thread to:
What [amongst any set of scientists you care to talk about] would constitute consensus,
AND what would that consensus imply for future developments in that field?
The first point Simon says addressed - before going off onto creationists and GW denialists and conspiracy theofries. Astrogeek, while less explicit, is saying much the same thing.
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.
If he is referring to evolution, the majority of professional biologists subscribe to some flavor of Darwinian Evolution. There are differences here and there among biologists. Some are gradualists. Some favor punctuated equilibrium, but there is major agreement that the empirical evidence supports evolution by natural selection.
ruveyn
If he is referring to evolution, the majority of professional biologists subscribe to some flavor of Darwinian Evolution. There are differences here and there among biologists. Some are gradualists. Some favor punctuated equilibrium, but there is major agreement that the empirical evidence supports evolution by natural selection.
ruveyn
Read my lips. Or at least my words.
My electronics teacher, 90% accuracy is fine. Or, as they say, good enough for Rock 'N Roll.
A NOT unimportant point is this:
Even agreement among scientists is NOT the same thing as truth.
Unless you buy into the "your truth, my truth" thing, in which case there is no point in any two people discussing anything,.
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.
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.
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?

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
_________________
"The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken." ? Bertrand Russell
Sorry Philologos but this proposition confuses me, however I am neither a scientist nor a linguist.
My understanding was that science was the study of phenomena in order to better understand them, and by inference this is an ongoing process as the universe is effectively infinate and for every satisfying 'answer' there are raised more questions or lines of enquiry.
As an outsider whose main 'flair' seems to be 'big picture' thinking, [I am the blind man asking all the other blind people which part of the elephant they are touching while simultaneously touching the odd part myself in order to be sure it is not a tree or snake or rock etc...] As an outsider it appears to me that from time to time there is enough concensus for the broader community involved in a particular line of enquiry [branch of the sciences?] to decide that someones proposistion [hypothosis] has gained enough credibility/validity to become the current working theory upon which everyone at least temporarily agrees. Is this not as close as humans ever get in any area of thought to a consensus?
Theologians are far from in concensus surely?
peace j
_________________
Just because we can does not mean we should.
What vision is left? And is anyone asking?
Have a great day!
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 |