RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3383Goal: $5000

Scientific consensus

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The poetry of reality
Science
Icon science.svg
Extraordinary claims with
extraordinary evidence
Hot from the
giants' shoulders
Extreme political or religious conflicts resolve by war. Extreme scientific conflicts resolve by a search for better data.
Neil deGrasse Tyson

Scientific consensus is what most scientists in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant.

The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research. When it is, a hypothesis becomes known as a (lower-case) theory, or, given enough time and evidence, an (upper case) Theory, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Numerous times in the history of science one theory has been superseded by another as anomalies or counter-examples accrued over time and the scientific community has discarded an older theory in favor of a new theory which accounted for more of the data in a more satisfactory way. This often occurs as the result of improvements in the accuracy of the instruments used to observe, record and measure phenomena.

Misunderstanding[edit]

Advocates of pseudosciences tend to see scientific consensus as just an argument from authority (or even a conspiracy).[1] Some even assume the existence of a mysteriously ill-defined "scientific establishment" enforcing received scientific orthodoxy by diktat.[2] The twisting of science was wrong before (skeptics may intone), and then what about the Galileo gambit? Furthermore, since the notion of falsifiability exists (no theory can never be fully certain), we should then ignore the mountains of literature already available. Or the opponents of "the" consensus simply equate falsifiability with "false".

Portraying scientific consensus as a form of majoritarian rule is hilarious for two reasons:

  1. The scientific community has the inherent role of keeping a check on popularly-held (either right or wrong) opinions.[3]
  2. If one study proves correct despite mainstreamWikipedia's W.svg academic thought, it will eventually become the new consensus.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Hostility towards scientific consensus: A sign of a crank, Respectful Insolence
  2. Compare: {cite book | last1 = Sisson | first1 = Edward | chapter = 14: Debunking the Scopes 'Monkey Trial' Stereotype | editor1-last = Dembski | editor1-first = William A. | editor1-link = William A. Dembski | editor2-last = Licona | editor2-first = Michael R. | title = Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=SuRNZJ6M11MC | location = Grand Rapids, Michigan | publisher = Baker Books | publication-date = 2010 | page = 79 | isbn = 9781441211798 | access-date = 2017-06-03 | quote = Of course, the scientific establishment of today would denounce all of this. }}
  3. Scheufele, Dietram. "Communicating science in social settings." PNAS 110(3), 2013.