Why should scientist be concerned about a consensus?

Question

Wouldn't a good scientist question it and try to prove it either way.

Answer 1

If a consensus is good enough, why work harder to find the mathematical proof?

A consensus is a lazy man's science. That requires better oratory skills than scientific ability.

Answer 2

Any good scientist submits his/he work to peer review. At an early stage this may well start as informal discussions within the faculty or department. The work is often improved by discussion and challenges and that is why many scientists put a great store on the conferences when people working in similar fields meet.
When disagreements arise - as they do - then it is very important to understand the issues at stake.
Can I reiterate please the issue about proof? Scientific theories are rarely proved In the few cases when they are we might call them a law but I think this would mean that the scientific mechanisms were very well understood - e.g. Boyle's Law. In a complex situation - and I can't think of anything more complex than climate - everything is a theory.
The normal way of substantiating a theory is to carry out tests and compare prediction with what is observed.
The IPCC uses 14 models built by different groups of scientists and computer modelers. Each model contains a multitiude of equations. Some represent 'Laws' e.g. conservation of mass but many represent processes (e.g. how an ice sheet melts as the temperature changes. These processes can often be verified separately but sometimes they can't.
There is a whole section in the IPCC report - Working Part 1 - The Physical Science Basis Chapter 8 - about the modeling process.
In the end of course a scientist may well believe he is right and his peers are wrong. Normally this doesn't matter - in fact it is good because it leads to more inquiry and the he/she may well be justified. But it is hard for one scientist to set up his/her own models because the investment in time is so great.
This is one reason why people allege that funding is being provided or withheld for political reasons. Some scientists complain that a political group have demanded that they support a no AGW theory and others the opposite. We would all be the poorer if good science is being suppressed because the policy makers are demanding a particular answer.

Answer 3

Scientists aren't concerned about consensus, but it seem like everyone global warming skeptic/denier wants to make it an issue. If you can't defeat the message, go after the messenger. Standard political tactic, but the biggest problem is politics shouldn't be part of this debate.

Scientists are worried about the data.

Answer 4

A scientist should not be worried about consensus, its the politicians who are as they try to prove they have majority support and which means that they are right. In politics number support matters and majority is might and right.

This is unfortunate and dangerous because oftentimes when the entire society is going in wrong direction a whistle blower is labelled as 'idiot','insane' or whatever and the majority just puts him/her down with sheer numbers.

Answer 5

Science isn't concerned about concensus...politicians are. Scientists gather data, conduct an analysis, and draw conclusions. Sometimes the data aren't as cut and dry as politicians would like them to be...

Answer 6

Scientists aren't a bit concerned about a consensus. You and I, who are not able to understand the astoundingly complex issues related to the theory, and who are thus forced to take scientists at their word on much of it, are.

Answer 7

They're not, exactly. It's more the people who use the scientist's work to make decisions that are concerned.

"Wouldn't a good scientist question it and try to prove it either way?"

Absolutely. And they do. Look at issues like what makes up the Universe. There are a host of competing theories including "string theory" and "quantum gravity". Scientific meetings have lively debates on alternatives.

Global warming went through that, maybe 10-15 years ago. But the people who proposed alternatives found that their theories just didn't work. And so slowly a consensus developed that the observed warming was (now) mostly caused by greenhouse gases.

That happens to in science. It happened in quantum mechanics. When it does, it's an indication that science has tried the alternatives and that they're wrong. And so the theory is considered "accepted".

Some scientists then continue to consider alternatives (Richard Lindzen). If they can come up with one that works, there's no shortage of interested colleagues.

Scientific consensus is not proof. But, if you need to make practical decisions, following the scientific consensus in your decisions is by far the best bet.

Which is why world leaders and corporate leaders use the scientific consensus in setting their future course. They know that bucking it is not a matter of intellectual interest, but one which exposes them to a serious risk of doing something really stupid.

Excellent question.

EDIT 15 minutes of work, and albatros39a says it in a few words. Sigh.

Answer 8

In the real world research depends on funding and politics. Going against the consensus can have implications for both.

It's not really unscientific for a researcher to have beliefs or opinions (that's human nature). They can still use proper scientific methods to try to prove those beliefs.

Answer 9

I agree. A scientist should look at the evidence and draw his own conclusions instead of following the crowd. Too often the crowd walks off a cliff.

Answer 10

They shouldn't. They should only be concerned about finding the answers to the theories they are trying to prove.