Is Objective Science Dead?

Question

An analogy - take a school hall full of kids, ask them what's the capital of France, 999 say Paris and 1 says Rome. Would anyone believe the kid who said Rome was correct?

Is this what passes for science these days? What if 999 said Boston? Would that make it true? Of course not. It doesn't depend on the number of people who say something. It just takes one person to look up the data to find out what the right answer is.

At one time the consensus declared the Earth was the center of the universe. I'm grateful to that one man who did the research and determined that wasn't right.

Consensus "science" should be banished by the scientific community. There should be substitute for Objective Science.

Parrot - I disagree. I think your definition of consensus is wrong. A consensus is an agreement among people's opinion. This has nothing to do with science.

Gravity requires absolutely no one to agree with it or not. It just requires one person with verifiable facts to explain the phenomenon.

Patzky - A consensus is fine for scientist to decide where to direct resources. It should not be used as a substitute for measurable data.

Answer 1

Yeah Jello, I looked at that analogy and laughed. That was Trevor, wasn’t it?

Hardly a good analogy for global warming is it? I think it’s fair to say that it’s reasonably well understood what constitutes the capital of France, so the answer is clear. The same is not true about global warming.

The fact is, in true science the consensus is irrelevant. All that matters is that you are right, which means that your claims can be reproduced and verified by others in the real world.

It would actually help their case if the Alarmists tried singing from the same song sheet. How do they expect anyone to accept what they’re being told when the dire prediction change every day?

No one can reproduce what the temperature will be in 100 years – we aren’t there yet. And no one is verifying the competency of the model makers who are predicting the future. It took them long enough to accurately reproduce the past and we’re supposed to accept that they’ve got the future right already?

Were we all born yesterday?

If I showed the believers a computer model that could accurately reproduce past lottery numbers and claimed it would predict future draws too, how much do think they would pay me for it?

I do hope their answer to that question would be “nothing”. The worrying thing is that I feel the need to even ask!

And does it not bother any Alarmists that experts in forecasting say that the predictions are so flawed as to be worthless? Or are they now claiming that climate scientists are so omnipotent that their powers of prediction trump any mere forecasting expert?

I also find it interesting that some Alarmists, such as linlyons, above, liken sceptics to the religious – people who will believe something in the absence of conclusive evidence. Oddly enough, I’ve always felt that it’s the Alarmists who are doing that!

In science the default position is scepticism. You should remain a sceptic until such time as you are convinced that the science is proved. Currently there are enough things about the AGW hypothesis that make me go “hmmm?” to keep me sceptical. I’m old enough to have seen enough science scares – that turned out to be junk – to make me cautious of jumping onto bandwagons. But instead of being called “wise”, I am vilified.

Why?

No one will dispute AGW once the science is proved, so why don’t the climate scientists get on with the job of trying to confirm it and stop trying to scare us with exaggerated, alarmist rhetoric.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 2

Actually, science as we know it and love it didn't exist during the time Earth was believed to be the center of the universe. In fact, it was through scientific thinking that we disposed of Geocentric thinking in the first place.

And of course, as has been pointed out more times than I care to count on these boards, consensus never makes science. Consensus is simply what's left when the science has been done. There is no such thing as "consensus science."

Think of it this way, there is a widespread scientific consensus over the theory of evolution by natural selection. There is a widespread scientific consensus over the theory of gravity. There is a widespread scientific consensus over the germ theory of disease. Yet you will never hear anyone claiming that these theories were the result of any consensus. The majority of scientists accept them simply because the evidence supporting them is so overwhelming.

Edit: I define a consensus as "a collective opinion or general agreement." It simply means that most scientists share the same view. I agree that consensus has nothing to do with science (it is important in making policy decisions, however).

My point was that the fact that scientists have reached a general consensus over the theory of gravity doesn't mean they have performed science by consensus. It just means they all think the one guy with the verifiable facts was right. In the same way that most scientists believe the "guy" with the verifiable facts about global warming is right.

Answer 3

The complexity of the global warming problem is so great that results from multiple sources is required, as a result there will have to be some consensus science.

Answer 4

Along with consensus, you might as well throw in the appeal to authority. Only "qualified" people can have a valid opinion...


...and only we can determine who is qualified.

Can you imagine the discussions that would have taken place in a 1907 version of Y!A over in the physics forum:

dana1881: You are going to listen to a PATENT CLERK'S ideas on theoretical physics? He FAILED his entrance exam to get into a university. Special relativity? Sounds like this guy belongs in special ed. Most physicists don't even recognize his work, and of those who do most of them reject his ideas outright.

Quit wasting everybody's time and go back to emptying waste baskets at the patent office!

Answer 5

consensus is a bad thing if piled high on the bandwagon. but it can also indicate a grudging nod to the truth by skeptics influenced, one by one, by logic and evidence. of course this process takes time: does it take but one instance to prove or disprove?

eventually the consensus may (MAY!) be proven correct, not because 99% of people believe it, but because the evidence shows that it is true. and it also may be proven UNtrue. with every advance there is risk...

Answer 6

forget the consensus you keep bringing up, real scientists have tried to disprove A-global warming, they simply cannot do it. They try to link the sun to global warming, but they can't. They try to link it to orbital cycles, but they can't. They try to link it to cosmic rays, but they can't. They try to link it to the greenhouse effect, and they can.

Which has nothing to with a consensus and everything to do with real science. Scientists aren't trying to fool you, they are trying to do real science, so let them.

Answer 7

no