|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Scientific consensus
I'm sorry, but this piece is embarrassing. "Scientific consensus"? I don't think there is a strict concept as such...it looks like another made up concept being formalized to give pseudoscientists a break. It shows an embarrassing lack of knowledge of science, and no understanding of the literature on philosophy of science. I vote for essay or Fun.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:15, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
As I think about it more (and I have you to thank for that, Ed), "scientific consensus" might more properly be described as a temporizing agreement on how to understand a scientifically controversial concept. There is no "consensus" on scientific facts---they are simply understood to be correct.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:32, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
- wp:Scientific consensus certainly exists as a concept, but it bears little resemblance to what's being decribed here. More properly, I guess it should be seen as a manifestation of a prevalent Kuhnian paradigm or something like that. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:34, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
- I tried to make some improvements to the article, removing the idea that when a theory is dosproved it is embarassing to the scientific community. Scientists follow the truth wherever it goes, and are pleased, not embarrassed when they make a breakthrough to a new and better theory. I made the distinction between lower-case theory and upper-case Theory to distinguish between the little theories that form a framework for a grand Theory that unites an entire field. An example would be the theory that radiation can cause mutations in genes which is a very small part of the Theory of Evolution. Rational Edthink! 10:44, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- Also, hypotheses and theories do not become laws, although they may lead to information that allows the researcher to suggest or formulate a law. Rational Edthink! 10:47, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- I tried to make some improvements to the article, removing the idea that when a theory is dosproved it is embarassing to the scientific community. Scientists follow the truth wherever it goes, and are pleased, not embarrassed when they make a breakthrough to a new and better theory. I made the distinction between lower-case theory and upper-case Theory to distinguish between the little theories that form a framework for a grand Theory that unites an entire field. An example would be the theory that radiation can cause mutations in genes which is a very small part of the Theory of Evolution. Rational Edthink! 10:44, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
I would like to replace this page[edit]
I would like to move the good points currently on this page to the Scientific theory page. I would then like to replace this page with a complete original article that I wrote for the now-defunct EvoWiki site, which I believe will allay all suspicions that this topic is not relevant to our cause. Are there any objections? zieber 13:15, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
- Yeah. Why not post your article in the essay space first before making wholesale reversions like that. TheoryOfPractice 13:18, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
- Please see my article at Essay:Scientific consensus. zieber 12:05, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
When is it consensus?[edit]
My issue with this is that it is subjective. When and how does it occur? Disagreement advances science as people refine and replace older ideas. There are serious scientists for example, who don't agree with the big bang, sometimes with reasonable cause, but I would consider that theory consensus. Higgs Boson is all but approved, but there are so many other theories which fall into limbo - memetics for one, and short of resurrecting a dinosaur certain aspects of their behaviour will be guessworkAlbannach (talk).
Some unhappy BoN[edit]
This article is absolute, unadulterated trash. "Scientific Consensus" MUST be defined in more objective terms than this hand-waving nonsense. "Scientific Consensus" is a colossal appeal to authority, which should be readily apparent to anyone who reads this site and is versed in fallacious argumentation. Obviously, this doesn't mean you give more credence to 1% of dissenters than 99% of the majority -- but it does mean that you must evaluate each argument on its own merits and each scientific study on its own merits. It doesn't matter if 1 out of a million studies disagrees if that one study is extremely well designed, has a great sample size, excellent analysis... etc. "Scientific Consensus" is where nearly all of the well-designed, non politically motivated studies agree and only poorly designed or poorly analyzed studies disagree.— Unsigned, by: 24.159.199.114 / talk 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, Not at all true. This "expertise lends no value" line is pretty bullshit and asking non-experts to evaluate claims is both an impossible standard and one fraught with common misunderstandings. And consensus, by its nature, is more subjective than objective. 10% of a field consistently and reliably publishing good material against a majority is substantively different than 10% who'd sorta disagree if you just kinda asked them their opinion. There's no magic line. Also, trying to interject "But there might be bias to everyone publishing in the field, so please accept my fringe paper" is far more where the bullshit tends to come from. I don't know what pseudoscience you're desperately trying to defend, but that's what you're doing. Ikanreed (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)