Consensus Science

[Admiral_Bobski]

A panel was recently made up to assess the evidence for the assertion that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. After their assessment the panel announced that it was an asteroid that was to blame and not volcanic activity in the Deccan traps (or, presumably, any other event).

My initial reaction was this:

"Why do we even need a consensus on this subject?"

Is it that the IPCC's announcement of a "climate change consensus" has shifted the scientific community towards declaring official consensus on scientific matters?

The big question is this: does an official consensus stifle scientific debate? If somebody has found evidence that goes against the consensus, is that evidence pooh-poohed before it has had a fair hearing because "it must be wrong" since it goes against the consensus?

Would most scientists not bother investigating a phenomenon because a consensus has been reached, or allow their belief in the consensus to cloud their judgement when studying that phenomenon?

Is there any place in science for official consensus?

I know an awful lot of people don't like the late Michael Crichton, but here's what he had to say about "Consensus Science":

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period... I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way...

What do you think?

CB

(Sources: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/03/08/rock-solid-science-a-6-mile-wide-space-rock-did-wipe-out-the-dinosaurs-experts-say/ ; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5970/1214 ; http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html )

[laserguy]

Could David Dilley (or even yourself and VP!) be the Nicolas Copernicus of our age ? You're right in what you say though. I won't comment further after this because I foresee another argument somewhere down the line,but the whole AGW 'thing' will never be overturned whatever happens,because (IMHO of course) it never was,is,or will have anything to do with climate. Bye!

[sunny starry skies]

Very good question! My pointer hovered over the 'bad' radio button for a while then I settled on 'makes no difference'. Not quite because I think it makes no difference, but because I think it depends on the nature of the consensus. If it is a consensus that is forced upon people, as you suggest, then it is definitely a bad thing, as it is against the natural way of scientific progress. But if it is a consensus that arises naturally out of, say, a theory that successfully explains the observations such that very few people quantitavely disagree with the theory, then it is a good thing, as it can then be a foundation for moving forward beyond the theory, or acting upon it. As far as climate scientists are concerned there is such a natural consensus. There will remain such a natural consensus until someone can come along with a strong alternative theory that can supercede the existing one. By that logic, a 'natural consensus' is also far more open to change in the light of new information, whereas a 'forced consensus' is not. 'Natural consensus' may also be seen as the adoption of a prevailing paradigm. While there may be some resistance from some (usually older) members of the relevant community to a paradigm shift away from the existing one, the shifts happen with the weight of new evidence to support a new theory.

I am entirely in agreement about the notion of 'official consensus' on the asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs as being pretty silly and unnecessary. Though I'm sure we're going to disagree on the nature of the AGW consensus!

sss

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thanks, sss - a well-reasoned and well-explained position, as I would expect of you!

I was, I confess, rather obvious in my connecting this to AGW (but, hey, if I wasn't connecting it to AGW then I should've put this in the "Space, Science and Nature" forum!).

More to the point, I agree with what you say, for the most part. I agree that there is a natural consensus on AGW, by which I mean that a majority of scientists believe that AGW is occurring to some degree or other. The problem I have is that, because there is a natural consensus there is no need for an official one.

An official consensus serves only to stifle the minority who do not agree with it. A natural consensus is nothing more than a situation in which most scientists agree with a particular theory.

There is a natural consensus on Einstein's theories of relativity, for example - the vast majority of scientists accept that it is true (insofaras anything is true in science). There is simply no need for there to be an official consensus.

So, what is the point of an official consensus?

In the case of AGW it is clearly to establish a baseline by which politicians can implement policies, which means that the consensus is a purely political statement, not a scientific one. I believe it was this to which Michael Crichton objected - science and politics are not cosy bedfellows. By establishing a consensus on AGW, the minority group who disagreed with the theory were effectively excluded from the debate: not necessarily by the actual scientists but perhaps by political pressures.

But what does an official consensus do for the dinosaurs? I can't see how it can serve any purpose whatsoever. Perhaps there is a political aim (perhaps, for example, it "proves" that mass extinctions can come about by climatological means...perhaps they should tell us something we don't know!). But the only thing I can see an official consensus doing is stifling debate - preventing some young upstart from coming along and overturning a hundred years of scientific belief.

Maybe that's what all this "consensus" stuff is about - preventing change. The human race seems to have reached a point where it clings desperately onto things and refuses to let go. We've seen so much change over the past 100 years - over the past 20 years! - that maybe we have become afraid of any more change.

It's a puzzler...

CB

EDIT - thanks also to laserguy for being the first to leap into the fray! Sorry to overlook you, but I couldn't think of anything in your post to comment on...except, perhaps, to say that I sincerely doubt that I'm the Copernicus of our age. VP, maybe, but not me!

Edited March 11, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[VillagePlank]

No, I am not the new Copernicus ...

Consensus science is science that is based, loosely, upon a logical fallacy, ad populum, otherwise known as an appeal to popularity. It's form goes something like this:

(i) Most people believe that X is true.

(ii) Therefore X is true.

For the version that scientific consensus uses amend (ii) to

(ii) Therefore X is believed to be true.

Of course, there is the notion of qualification of belief, but that, in and of itself, is qualititative (mainly), and, in my view, science is quantitative. Therefore consensus and science do not mix.

Of course, the converse is that science is never known to be true. It is always our best 'guess' of the day no matter how well quantified it might be.

And besides, who wants to mix belief systems and science? They might go together (they should in terms of psychology, and neurology) but the endless question of the nth degree - the existence of a deity - would bog down argument for millenia to come. In my opinion, then, consensus science is a dangerous, difficult, dirty road to travel, and is therefore best avoided.

A similar argument is that the quantity of evidence delivers an outcome, which means that such an outcome must be true. I've seen that one a few times, too.

Edited March 11, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

I've just noticed that somebody has voted for "Good". I'm not going to start jumping up and down and shouting that consensus science can't be good - there is no right or wrong answer in this poll; I just wanted to get a broad spread of opinion. It would be helpful, though, if anyone who votes "good" could explain why they think that - just as sss explained why he thought that it made no difference. I was kinda hoping the poll would invoke some discussion.

Thanks.

CB

(Thanks, VP, for your answer - but are you sure you're not Copernicus? You're not secretly Prussian, are you? )

Edited March 11, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

No, I am not the new Copernicus ...

Consensus science is science that is based, loosely, upon a logical fallacy, ad populum, otherwise known as an appeal to popularity. It's form goes something like this:

(i) Most people believe that X is true.

(ii) Therefore X is true.

For the version that scientific consensus uses amend (ii) to

(ii) Therefore X is believed to be true.

Of course, there is the notion of qualification of belief, but that, in and of itself, is qualititative (mainly), and, in my view, science is quantitative. Therefore consensus and science do not mix.

Of course, the converse is that science is never known to be true. It is always our best 'guess' of the day no matter how well quantified it might be.

And besides, who wants to mix belief systems and science? They might go together (they should in terms of psychology, and neurology) but the endless question of the nth degree - the existence of a deity - would bog down argument for millenia to come. In my opinion, then, consensus science is a dangerous, difficult, dirty road to travel, and is therefore best avoided.

A similar argument is that the quantity of evidence delivers an outcome, which means that such an outcome must be true. I've seen that one a few times, too.

What should scientist say when they can't prove something but there is a lot of evidence that points to that something being 'right', 'likely', 'probable', 'the most likely explanation'?

I don't quite see why we get hung up with words like consensus, (or proof, or fact which do the rounds here and elsewhere). To say there is a consensus is to describe a reality, most climate scientists accept Co2 is a ghg, that we're adding it, but there are questions about feedbacks etc etc etc.

Re the poll, there isn't an option I can vote for becasue I'm not sure there are 'official' consensuses (spp?) about anything (as in, 'this is 'offical' you do some kind of 'wrong' to oppose it' and I'm not sure there is a need (as the poll explantion implies?) for how we voted to be listed (well, that's how it reads 'other member will be able to see which option you chose'?).

[Thundery wintry showers]

I generally think a "natural" consensus can be a good thing because if a number of people analyse a topic and independently (this bit is important) reach a similar conclusion, it suggests, at the very least, that there's a solid basis behind the conclusion (though not going as far as saying that it's right).

But as soon as the consensus finds its way into the premises of our arguments, then it becomes a bad thing. It can, indeed, make it hard to take an alternative stance without being shot down. One common problem you get in these situations is that some extremists will spout a lot of twaddle, and others will come up with more reasoned challenges, and the latter tend to get lumped together with the former. Indeed, often the perpetuators of the orthodox view are more keen to resort to authoritarian methods of shooting down well-reasoned criticism than extremist twaddle because it poses more of a genuine threat to the "status quo" (I've had various experiences of this when questioning the correctness of certain laws, for example). You also get confirmation bias and even circular arguments (starting off with the appeal to popularity "most people think A is true, so A must be true", and then trying to fit evidence around A, and concluding from the evidence that A is true).

In the case of AGW I think most of the leading scientists have more of a natural consensus, but the political side of it is more the debate-stifling variety. There is no need for a political consensus on AGW, when issues like pollution and peak oil also provide plenty of evidence to justify a similar set of policies.

[VillagePlank]

What should scientist say when they can't prove something but there is a lot of evidence that points to that something being 'right', 'likely', 'probable', 'the most likely explanation'?

They should say "I can't prove this"

It happens in maths all the time, they even have words for it: hypothesis, lemma, conjecture (all used in different and confusing ways, of course)

[Devonian]

They should say "I can't prove this"

It happens in maths all the time, they even have words for it: hypothesis, lemma, conjecture (all used in different and confusing ways, of course)

But, there are surely plenty of natural science things that are 'known' that can't be 'proved' (here we get into words again, what does 'prove mean?)? I'm sure we've been round this before

[Admiral_Bobski]

What should scientist say when they can't prove something but there is a lot of evidence that points to that something being 'right', 'likely', 'probable', 'the most likely explanation'?

I don't quite see why we get hung up with words like consensus, (or proof, or fact which do the rounds here and elsewhere). To say there is a consensus is to describe a reality, most climate scientists accept Co2 is a ghg, that we're adding it, but there are questions about feedbacks etc etc etc.

Re the poll, there isn't an option I can vote for becasue I'm not sure there are 'official' consensuses (spp?) about anything (as in, 'this is 'offical' you do some kind of 'wrong' to oppose it' and I'm not sure there is a need (as the poll explantion implies?) for how we voted to be listed (well, that's how it reads 'other member will be able to see which option you chose'?).

The thing is that I'm not hung up on the word consensus at all. As I said in reply to sss, I believe there is a consensus among scientists that AGW is happening (a consensus, in this case, meaning "a majority acceptance").

The problem comes when forming a group with the specific intention of declaring what the consensus is. The "natural" consensus that sss mentioned is an unspoken consensus, by which I mean that there is no official pronouncement that the general belief is that AGW is occurring. In science it genuinely doesn't matter what the consensus is - all that matters is what is right.

By officially stating the consensus you (not you, Dev, but the officials!) are saying that "the scientific community believes this to be the case", which alienates anyone within the community who disagrees.

I don't see why we need some kind of "secret ballot" on this subject - as I said earlier, there is no right or wrong answer. (Also I didn't realise that there was any other way of doing a poll - it's my first one...and I still don't know who answered "Good" or how I might go about finding out, so it's obviously not listed that clearly.)

But I don't know what you mean about not being sure that there are official consensus (plural of "consensus" is, apparently, just "consensus" - it must be a Latin thing). A consensus is something that just happens - it is the majority belief, effectively. A consensus happens whether someone announces its existence or not. An official consensus, in the terms I described, is one which has been specifically determined and announced. Is there really any need, in science, to make such statements?

CB

[Devonian]

The thing is that I'm not hung up on the word consensus at all. As I said in reply to sss, I believe there is a consensus among scientists that AGW is happening (a consensus, in this case, meaning "a majority acceptance").

The problem comes when forming a group with the specific intention of declaring what the consensus is. The "natural" consensus that sss mentioned is an unspoken consensus, by which I mean that there is no official pronouncement that the general belief is that AGW is occurring. In science it genuinely doesn't matter what the consensus is - all that matters is what is right.

By officially stating the consensus you (not you, Dev, but the officials!) are saying that "the scientific community believes this to be the case", which alienates anyone within the community who disagrees.

I don't see why we need some kind of "secret ballot" on this subject - as I said earlier, there is no right or wrong answer. (Also I didn't realise that there was any other way of doing a poll - it's my first one...and I still don't know who answered "Good" or how I might go about finding out, so it's obviously not listed that clearly.)

But I don't know what you mean about not being sure that there are official consensus (plural of "consensus" is, apparently, just "consensus" - it must be a Latin thing). A consensus is something that just happens - it is the majority belief, effectively. A consensus happens whether someone announces its existence or not. An official consensus, in the terms I described, is one which has been specifically determined and announced. Is there really any need, in science, to make such statements?

CB

Yes, but if there is a consensus should science not tell that truth about that so that people who disagree feel more happy to say so and not be alienated? It would be an odd thing to do to me.

I don't see any way round this. As you say consensus happens - if you're not part of that you're bound to be somewhat alienated (try posting comments from a pro AGW stance on WUWT ).

Edited March 11, 2010 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Yes, but if there is a consensus should science not tell that truth about that so that people who disagree feel more happy to say so and not be alienated? Seems an odd thing to do to me.

On the contrary, I think the vast majority of people would feel less comfortable about disagreeing with an openly-stated widespread belief or acceptance. If there is no "consensus group" then what are you going to feel alienated by (or from)?

If there is no official declaration of the consensus then there are merely "those who agree" and "those who disagree". If there is a declaration then the groups are "part of the consensus" and "not part of the consensus". It becomes almost like a popularity contest, and the popular ones hold more sway than the unpopular ones (and if you disagree with that then, well, just look at the AGW debate since the IPCC's first report).

Similarly, I suspect that the dinosaur extinction debate will now become more aggressive or else it will die out altogther (go extinct, you might say). The official declaration of consensus will stifle the debate. It won't be as widely reported as the AGW debate, of course, and perhaps only those involved will know what's going on in there, but I honestly think that's the way it will go.

I'll keep my eye on it and see what happens.

CB

Edited March 11, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[VillagePlank]

But, there are surely plenty of natural science things that are 'known' that can't be 'proved' (here we get into words again, what does 'prove mean?)? I'm sure we've been round this before

Yep - we've done these word games before and they always end up messy! I simply answered a question where you asked me what someone should say if something could not be proved. That is all.

Anyway, the root of all of this is the search for the truth. Of course, one of the biggest questions of all, is 'can the truth be known' (not 'is the truth out there') and if it can be known, then how can we know it?

Proof (ie 'to prove') is a technical concept - ie it is possible to ascertain whether or not something is proved. Most science is, as you alude to, unproven, in so far as it is an exercise in probability and not proof. Those matters which can be proved tend (and I use the word tend because really I don't know) to become laws.

Therefore, I would contend, if something is known then it must have a proof associated with it - otherwise it is a 'guess' and that how good that guess is linearly inseperable from the probability of that guess being true.

Now, if a law has a proof, and from first principles it can be shown that some other hypothesis is a derivation of such a law, then such a derivation, assuming that it is logically or algebraically perfect, to my mind, is as good as the initial law. It doesn't become a new law because it is not a first principle.

Thus we build up the massive hierarchy of human knowledge - without consensus.

Edited March 11, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Thundery wintry showers]

In my view, the worst example of a stifling consensus on AGW is the political idea that we must make out to the public that the science is settled "to avoid putting unnecessary doubt in the minds of the public". There is often no room for any debate on that issue- either you accept the consensus or you get shot down by its proponents. At least with AGW science the extent of AGW is continually being questioned and debated, and the argument is more over whether the debate is as open as it should be rather than whether the debate exists at all.

It's quite well-established that other than the "sustainability" issue my biggest issue with today's world is the progressive erosion of various freedoms, and usually when I get involved in debates on them, I find that there are similar "unquestionable" consensus views among those who are actively perpetuating and campaigning for these erosions of freedoms. Again, I get particularly concerned about how hard it is to have a half-open debate on those issues as a result, for without debate, future policies are likely to take us only in one direction.

I tend to agree that we don't actually need consensus in order to achieve results in research- a consensus should be the result of a set of work that logically leads to a certain conclusion, not the starting point that we work from. When it comes to policymaking, there is more of a need for consensus in the sense that groups have to agree on what policies to implement, but there has to be a balance between that and allowing the "party line" to be questioned, debated and if some good fresh ideas come in, revised.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Thundery wintry showers

[PersianPaladin]

Erm..this is misleading.

Consensus means that ALL people in a group agree on something. At least thats how I've come to understand the definition.

We don't have that situation in all areas of scientific inquiry. Having said that; if enough credible and knowledgable people put forward a solid scientific argument then it should be taken seriously and things like risk mitigation, etc should be implemented.

Edited March 11, 2010 by PersianPaladin

[sunny starry skies]

There is definitely a separation between a research consensus and a political one, in that in research it tends to come about naturally, but in politics it is more driven, partly because of the different ideologies involved. In politics it's harder to get a consensus, but you need some sort of majority to pass policies. An analogy might be first-past-the-post versus proportional representation, where the PR system gives a smoother representation of the voters' wishes, but is less likely to provide a clear winner or outcome. FPTP often skews results, producing a clear winner when the voter proportions say it wasn't so close. The result is greater legislative power, less need for compromise or 'consensus'.

The problem with AGW is that here is a natural scientific consensus being pushed into the political arena, which is where ideologies come into play. In order for policy to be made, it is easier for the politicians (not the scientists) to skew the consensus into something absolute, the 'them and us' approach, which leads to inevitable political problems when errors are found/mud is slinged, but to the politicians it is the only way to push AGW forward. The fallout is on the scientists who do not deal in certainties (we're not talking about Newton's Law of Gravitation here), but are dealing in theories, which have a high degree of verification, and a consensus of opinion among nearly all relevant scientists. They are then slammed when the politicians assertion of certainty is confused with the real state of the science. But I don't suppose the political environment (or the media for that matter) will ever understand the differences between the scientific terms 'hypothesis' (a testable idea that explains observations/makes predictions that is as yet untested or unverified), 'theory' (hypothesis is verified and passes existing tests, predictions are subsequently verified), or 'law' (fundamental mathematical relationship exactly describing a principle of science). Theories rarely become laws, as the definition of 'law' is very specific and far too narrow for most theories. To too many people, 'theory' implies something [very] uncertain, yet they are the building blocks of our scientific knowledge. Politics and science make very uncomfortable bedfellows it seems, and a lot of it is down to language, and some of it to ideology.

Not really sure quite where I'm going here (!) so I'll stop at that.

sss

[Admiral_Bobski]

Erm..this is misleading.

Consensus means that ALL people in a group agree on something. At least thats how I've come to understand the definition.

We don't have that situation in all areas of scientific inquiry. Having said that; if enough credible and knowledgable people put forward a solid scientific argument then it should be taken seriously and things like risk mitigation, etc should be implemented.

The primary definition of "consensus" is "majority opinion", followed by "general agreement" (which does not preclude the existence of those who disagree, since the agreement is only general). Not everyone in a group need agree - the outcome of a discussion within a group can lead to a consensus decision or a unanimous one. Unanimous means "of one mind" or "complete agreement" (as opposed to "general agreement").

You're right - we don't have that situation in all areas of scientific enquiry, and that's precisely my point: does it have any place in scientific enquiry? If you read back over the first post in this thread you will see that it was sparked by the announcement of a consensus on whether an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. The "climate change consensus" has set a precedent in modern scientific enquiry and it would seem that the palaeontological community has followed the precedent. But why? What place does consensus have in science? That's the point.

As for the "if enough credible and knowledgeable people put forward a solid scientific argument" comment, I would point out that a lot of credible, knowledgeable and highly respected people put forward arguments for eugenics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Those arguments were "solid scientific" ones, as far as the understanding of the day went. Just because a lot of smart people push a theory (or policy) doesn't automatically make it good or right. And, as Crichton said, Science is (or can be) done by individuals: if a single person is right and everybody else is wrong, it really doesn't matter what everybody else thinks.

To sunny starry skies:

Again, you are correct - the natural consensus has been pushed into the political arena. The problem is that it is not just politicians who are acting like...well, like politicians. The IPCC was set up, fundamentally, by governments. The people who worked on the project were scientists. Those scientists were pushed and pulled this way and that to include certain things, exclude certain other things and, basically, deliberately proceed in a manner which does not entirely fall within the jurisdiction of "the scientific method".

Since the IPCC's first report the mud has really started to be slung. The spite and venom being spewed at scientists from - and at - both sides of the debate is, frankly, shocking. I know that scientific circles aren't a purely intellectual utopia, as some people seem to think, but the sheer degree of vitriol is astonishing. And all this since the IPCC's pronouncement of scientific consensus.

CB

As a quick addendum, I notice that we now have 3 "good" votes and 3 "bad" votes. Explanations have been put forward for why people think consensus science is bad, but as yet nobody has explained why they think it is good. Any takers?

[PersianPaladin]

The primary definition of "consensus" is "majority opinion", followed by "general agreement" (which does not preclude the existence of those who disagree, since the agreement is only general). Not everyone in a group need agree - the outcome of a discussion within a group can lead to a consensus decision or a unanimous one. Unanimous means "of one mind" or "complete agreement" (as opposed to "general agreement").

You're right - we don't have that situation in all areas of scientific enquiry, and that's precisely my point: does it have any place in scientific enquiry? If you read back over the first post in this thread you will see that it was sparked by the announcement of a consensus on whether an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. The "climate change consensus" has set a precedent in modern scientific enquiry and it would seem that the palaeontological community has followed the precedent. But why? What place does consensus have in science? That's the point.

As for the "if enough credible and knowledgeable people put forward a solid scientific argument" comment, I would point out that a lot of credible, knowledgeable and highly respected people put forward arguments for eugenics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Those arguments were "solid scientific" ones, as far as the understanding of the day went. Just because a lot of smart people push a theory (or policy) doesn't automatically make it good or right. And, as Crichton said, Science is (or can be) done by individuals: if a single person is right and everybody else is wrong, it really doesn't matter what everybody else thinks.

Okay...the Oxford English dictionary definition is "general agreement" in terms of consensus. Defining "general agreement" is problematic. I reckon the word "consensus" is a tad confusing because of its variety of contextual experiences: -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus

I can admit to being misled about its actual meaning in the scientific sphere. If it means "majority" then of course, it doesn't mean its right. And sometimes in political spheres we experience a phenomenon known as "groupthink": -

http://www.psysr.org...%20overview.htm

And as for eugenics, yes I did take their arguments seriously. However, I firstly reject them because they are not based on simple observations of what occurs as is in the natural and human-constructed world outside the realm of ideology. It is instead an elitist ideology using some contested scientific theory to try and support its advocacy. My main reason for rejecting eugenics is that I find it morally abhorrent. Global warming theory, on the other hand - does not construe an ideology (albeit some right-wing anti-government groups will tell you its a sinister plot) but is instead a series of observations regarding our impact on the natural world. Whether such data goes on and becomes misrepresented, obfuscated, etc by media and politicians is most likely a result of the corporate/hierarchical control over the dissemination of information which special interests may use to protect their own agenda.

Edited March 11, 2010 by PersianPaladin

[Thundery wintry showers]

In my view, the worst example of a stifling consensus on AGW is the political idea that we must make out to the public that the science is settled "to avoid putting unnecessary doubt in the minds of the public". There is often no room for any debate on that issue

It's quite well-established that other than the "sustainability" issue my biggest issue with today's world is the progressive erosion of various freedoms, and usually when I get involved in debates on them, I find that there are similar "unquestionable" consensus views among those who are actively perpetuating and campaigning for these erosions of freedoms

Upon reflection they resemble examples of political "groupthink". I think climate science is vulnerable to groupthink as well, but that scientists do a decent job of trying to keep it to a reasonably low level- I see plenty of conflicting views in the scientific literature regarding AGW and related issues (although I don't claim that they're perfect). But when politics comes into play it's a different matter.

Which raises the question, if we don't need consensus science, what do we need for political decision-making? My suggestion is that the broader issues of sustainability and peak oil are taken into account alongside AGW to make a more persuasive case for more in the way of conservation, and as such there is less need for any scientific consensus on AGW.

[PersianPaladin]

Upon reflection they resemble examples of political "groupthink". I think climate science is vulnerable to groupthink as well, but that scientists do a decent job of trying to keep it to a reasonably low level- I see plenty of conflicting views in the scientific literature regarding AGW and related issues (although I don't claim that they're perfect). But when politics comes into play it's a different matter.

Which raises the question, if we don't need consensus science, what do we need for political decision-making? My suggestion is that the broader issues of sustainability and peak oil are taken into account alongside AGW to make a more persuasive case for more in the way of conservation, and as such there is less need for any scientific consensus on AGW.

Well; the scientific method is about the pursuit of objective truth isn't it? Sadly, we live in a society where information is mediated by a process that some call "intellectual filetting" where a narrow aspect or context of the science gets presented by the media or by politicians or by public-relations groups. For example, we had that National Science Foundation press-release about the methane-release issue in the Siberian Arctic and with various media repeating the story. However, it required investing some time to realise that the degree of impact of Siberian methane on climate-change is contested. In some way, that is a good minor intellectual exercise of connecting the dots. But in another sense, its a waste of the publics' time in terms of being accurately informed about the degree in which a subject is contested, understood, promoted, etc.

Politics in my view, should be de-centralised but thats not for this forum.

Edited March 11, 2010 by PersianPaladin

[Admiral_Bobski]

Okay...the Oxford English dictionary definition is "general agreement" in terms of consensus. Defining "general agreement" is problematic. I reckon the word "consensus" is a tad confusing because of its variety of contextual experiences: -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus

I can admit to being misled about its actual meaning in the scientific sphere. If it means "majority" then of course, it doesn't mean its right. And sometimes in political spheres we experience a phenomenon known as "groupthink": -

http://www.psysr.org...%20overview.htm

And as for eugenics, yes I did take their arguments seriously. However, I firstly reject them because they are not based on simple observations of what occurs as is in the natural and human-constructed world outside the realm of ideology. It is instead an elitist ideology using some contested scientific theory to try and support its advocacy. My main reason for rejecting eugenics is that I find it morally abhorrent. Global warming theory, on the other hand - does not construe an ideology (albeit some right-wing anti-government groups will tell you its a sinister plot) but is instead a series of observations regarding our impact on the natural world. Whether such data goes on and becomes misrepresented, obfuscated, etc by media and politicians is most likely a result of the corporate/hierarchical control over the dissemination of information which special interests may use to protect their own agenda.

This discussion runs the risk of becoming just a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "consensus", but that would be the wrong way to go. The point is the implications of what that word means. Here's an example from the Wiki page to which you linked:

...the concept of consensus is a particularly important one in the context of society and government, and forms a cornerstone of the concept of democracy.

The implication of a scientific consensus is that science is a democracy. Science is not a democracy. The truth is not arrived at by collective agreement or by the assent of a majority. Here's another one:

[Consensus] can also lead to a few dominant individuals making all decisions.

If "the ones making all the decisions" are wrong then that's a bad thing for science. There shouldn't be decision-making in science - it's either right or it isn't, and that's all there is to it.

Moving on, I would question your assertion that AGW theory does not construe an ideology. In terms of the science itself I tend to agree with you. But the problem is with this "consensus" - scientists now, effectively sanctioned by the IPCC, offer suggestions for how to stop or reverse global warming. Their proposals are ideological, in that they are "a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology). This is because the science of AGW has become politicised, and this is precisely the objection that Michael Crichton had against consensus science.

With regards your follow-up post, I think that the media and public aspects of this discussion are a red herring. How the media present the science to the public, and how well the public understand that science, are irrelevant to the concept of consensus science. Consensus science is about the way in which science is conducted. If there is a corruption of the scientific process before the public or the media get involved then there is all ready a problem way before that point.

To TWS: I generally agree with what you say. More to the point, in answer to your question "if we don't need consensus science, what do we need for political decision-making?", what we need is politicians who will address issues head-on without hiding behind scientists. As you said earlier, issues like peak-oil and sustainability are real issues that can be tackled by following the same route that they are attempting to justify with AGW. It's like second-hand smoke - they hide behind dubious scientific studies to claim that second-hand smoke is bad for your health when what they should have been doing all along is saying "most people don't like smokers lighting up in restaurants and other public places, so we're going to ban it."

Basically, politicians need to be honest. And they're really not very good at that, are they?

CB

[laserguy]

what we need is politicians who will address issues head-on without hiding behind scientists. As you said earlier, issues like peak-oil and sustainability are real issues that can be tackled by following the same route that they are attempting to justify with AGW. It's like second-hand smoke - they hide behind dubious scientific studies to claim that second-hand smoke is bad for your health when what they should have been doing all along is saying "most people don't like smokers lighting up in restaurants and other public places, so we're going to ban it."

Basically, politicians need to be honest. And they're really not very good at that, are they?

CB

I wasn't going to comment further on here,but I oughtta have known the lure would be too strong. This is broadly what I've been saying all along. Personally I don't give a hoot for "the science" anymore. And whether AGW theory/hypothesis/whatever is right or wrong (it's wrong btw,but that's not for here) is a moot point. Reducing CO2 emissions goes hand in hand with achieving sustainability and eking out what we have in a world of ever increasing demand and dwindling supplies. Simples. All I've ever asked is for the ptb to just come right out with it and say "we need to reduce CO2 emissions because......", instead of ever hysterical scary fairy tales about no more snow in England and starving polar bears etc,blah blah. Um,carry on folks.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I wasn't going to comment further on here,but I oughtta have known the lure would be too strong. This is broadly what I've been saying all along. Personally I don't give a hoot for "the science" anymore. And whether AGW theory/hypothesis/whatever is right or wrong (it's wrong btw,but that's not for here) is a moot point. Reducing CO2 emissions goes hand in hand with achieving sustainability and eking out what we have in a world of ever increasing demand and dwindling supplies. Simples. All I've ever asked is for the ptb to just come right out with it and say "we need to reduce CO2 emissions because......", instead of ever hysterical scary fairy tales about no more snow in England and starving polar bears etc,blah blah. Um,carry on folks.

The essence of what CB said in that section you replied to was basically the essence of my own post in the general climate thread that was completely ignored the other day and then promptly closed. It was ignored there - but good to see it being picked up elsewhere (even if not attributable to my own post) about the difference between attaching the importance of the sustainability of global produce and seeking alternative cleaner, more sustainable forms of power to the threat of alleged AGW or attaching it to the simple balances of supply and demand and respect for the negative effects on the direct environment. The latter being a much more direct and less complex 'impact area' and less in need of theory testing and proving.

The honesty of just stating this, as you say, is missing. Instead we have a hysterical hoo-ha with alarmist stories about how our climate is going to change in order to motivate action. Just as I tried to suggest the other day. Maybe if the title of this thread was referring to whether one would support honest consensus science then my own answer might have been different.

Edited March 12, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Nick B]

Upon reflection they resemble examples of political "groupthink". I think climate science is vulnerable to groupthink as well, but that scientists do a decent job of trying to keep it to a reasonably low level- I see plenty of conflicting views in the scientific literature regarding AGW and related issues (although I don't claim that they're perfect). But when politics comes into play it's a different matter.

Which raises the question, if we don't need consensus science, what do we need for political decision-making? My suggestion is that the broader issues of sustainability and peak oil are taken into account alongside AGW to make a more persuasive case for more in the way of conservation, and as such there is less need for any scientific consensus on AGW.

Utterly correct, but they will not be as long as powerful and wealthy individuals wield power in the way nation states are governed (i.e. forever!). Because true sustainability (locally-based permaculture as well as ensuring oil reserves are carefully managed / eaked out) flies in the face of current economic policy of virtually every developed and developing nation on the planet, it is so much easier to deflect attention to the great bandwagon of global warming, CO2 etc. The term consensus is used as a political baton to beat down gainsayers through carefully controlled media, and of course to keep the public attention focused on the great roundabout argument of global warming, in order to milk as much tax from individuals as possible. So those in power remain that way through their own lifetimes, which is as far as any of them are prepared to look ahead.