Consensus Science

[Thundery wintry showers]

Devonian raises a good point, "how does one tell the difference?". Emotional forms of manipulation are often very hard to track down and sometimes go unnoticed even by the perpetuators (though rarely by those affected).

The most obvious way to tell would be if some people found that they felt afraid to express well-substantiated views, which disagreed with the consensus, because it might get them into trouble for doing so. I get a strong sense of this in the political discussions over AGW. It's similar to the "debates" over legal issues where you get a consensus saying "the law is right because it's the law, and the law is the law" and anyone who dares to question the correctness of the law or any propaganda surrounding it gets shot down for condoning illegal activity.

But then it's hard to tell those people apart from those who come up with unsubstantiated IceAgeNow-style nonsense and then, when their stances are refuted outright, come back with "you're a consensus and you're stifling my views", when in fact their views are being declared wrong because the available evidence (independent of the consensus) overwhelmingly says so.

I don't detect an air of this in the scientific discussions on AGW within the mainstream scientific community- just a little confirmation bias here and there.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think the difference doesn't really exist - what purpose does the official statement of consensus actually serve?

If everyone knows what the general view is then there is no need for the analysis and dissemination of that view.

If nobody knows what the general view is then the analysis and dissemination of that view is for the purpose of swaying others' opinions.

You don't go about forming a group of people to go through masses of research to form a viewpoint solely for the purpose of letting people know about it. Especially in science, where the majority view is beside the point.

Therefore, the official statement of consensus serves one function, and one function only: to silence (or reduce the credibility of) critics of that view. It is a pre-emptively defensive move, building a fortification around the mainstream view to fend off those who disagree.

I can't see anything about consensus that is beneficial to science.

CB

[Essan]

So, if it's announced that there is a consensus that Darwinian Evolution is correct ...... what does that mean? Who does that affect?

Simply: there is a consensus. Live with it!

[Admiral_Bobski]

So, if it's announced that there is a consensus that Darwinian Evolution is correct ...... what does that mean? Who does that affect?

Simply: there is a consensus. Live with it!

That's just about the most pathetic argument I've ever read in my life.

[Essan]

That's just about the most pathetic argument I've ever read in my life.

Why? because it is wrong? Because it is right?

At the end of the day, there is a consensus because we're not so arrogant as to say we're 100% certain. It may be argued that such incertainty should not be made so public, and in that sense maybe the fact there is only a consensus should not be pushed. But at least it's honest. What's so wrong with that?

Edited March 16, 2010 by Essan

[VillagePlank]

I think that there is a little too much of arguing around the grey areas, here - of course, that's the place the play, by definition, since it is grey not black nor white.

For those arguing for a consensus - I shall ask just one question ...

Should a theory be put to a vote?

(of course - there are countless sub-contexts, here: such as who is qualified to vote? And if that is a question, is the consensus, since only certain qualification enables an electorate, already closed to differing opinion. I hope some patent clerk doesn't have any good ideas)

[Admiral_Bobski]

Why? because it is wrong? Because it is right?

At the end of the day, there is a consensus because we're not so arrogant as to say we're 100% certain. It may be argued that such incertainty should not be made so public, and in that sense maybe the fact there is only a consensus should not be pushed. But at least it's honest. What's so wrong with that?

Because it's irrelevant.

Because it shows a complete failure on your part to attempt to understand what this discussion is about.

Because it wasn't even an argument - it was an attempt to end the discussion by saying "if you don't like it, too bad".

I shall ask just one question, to go alongside VP's (I've asked it before but had no answer):

What is the point of announcing consensus?

Edited March 17, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[Hiya]

I can't see anything about consensus that is beneficial to science.

CB

I feel inclined to disagree.

Sometimes a when consensus is reached it can allow people to bypass a problem in a set of linear experiments by making an assumption. As long as some people continue to work on the problem with the open mind that the solution might be contradictory to the consensus.

Hard to explain really.

Obviously the biggest science issue is GW and it does not conform to this.

[VillagePlank]

Obviously the biggest science issue is GW and it does not conform to this.

Come on, now, leave Grey-Wolf out of this

[Admiral_Bobski]

I feel inclined to disagree.

Sometimes a when consensus is reached it can allow people to bypass a problem in a set of linear experiments by making an assumption. As long as some people continue to work on the problem with the open mind that the solution might be contradictory to the consensus.

Hard to explain really.

Obviously the biggest science issue is GW and it does not conform to this.

Hiya

I appreciate that point of view, and I have wrestled with that idea, but I don't accept that it is good scientific practice to bypass problems. Science is about solving problems.

Science has a habit of leaping forward when a previously bypassed problem is solved (like when Einstein tackled the problem of the constancy of the speed of light head-on - Newton realised that there was a problem with his theory of gravitation but he bypassed it, even going so far as to note that he left the problem for other minds to tackle in the future).

Now, you could argue that Newton's laws served us very well for hundreds of years, and that Einstein's theories only refined Newton's work. But the thing is that Newton's laws (on the scale at which they were used) just worked. There was no real understanding of the laws, only an acceptance that they worked. Einstein's theories gave us the understanding and allowed science to leap forward, ironically paving the way for Quantum Mechanics which Einstein himself refuted all the way to his grave.

CB

Come on, now, leave Grey-Wolf out of this

[VillagePlank]

Sometimes a when consensus is reached it can allow people to bypass a problem in a set of linear experiments by making an assumption. As long as some people continue to work on the problem with the open mind that the solution might be contradictory to the consensus.

I agree, but it is also the case that any assumption on which any case is based is well documented primarily so that if there is a flaw in the underlying assumption then everything built upon such an assumption is necessarily invalidated.

I must admit that I am in two minds about this. Science is about being able to reproduce experiments so that others can verify, or otherwise. But how would we do that in climatology when super-computing in the order of zillions of calculations are required to execute the code? Should every person interested be able to afford a super-computer - or at least have access to one? We accept that the cost of entry to most sciences is years of study - but to accrue a fiscal penalty, too? Do we want to do that? Can we afford not to use super-computing?

Indeed, is the software peer-reviewed? If find that this is highly unlikely, given that scientific programming is a skill in and of itself. For instance, there are many many highly intelligent posters around here, and most know, intimately, of what it is they chat about.

But, as a challenge, take a look at the underlying mathematics required to implement fixed point arithmetic (here, PDF) It is hard. Of course, one might argue, some languages implement such arithmetic as part of the language, itself. However, shouldn't one understand the underlying principles rather than make the assumption that what you have is necessarily right?

If that is the case (and, frankly, I don't know) then every climatology 'lab' in the world is going to need to employ not just talented programmers, but computer scientists. And they cost a whole lot more.

Betwixt and between, I am.

Edited March 17, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Essan]

What is the point of announcing consensus?

To indicate that there is not absolute certainty, but based on current knowledge, scientists agree that this is the most likely scenario, whilst accepting they may in time be shown to be wrong.

[Admiral_Bobski]

To indicate that there is not absolute certainty, but based on current knowledge, scientists agree that this is the most likely scenario, whilst accepting they may in time be shown to be wrong.

And what is the point of that?

(I'm not just asking this to be pedantic - I'm really trying to get to the crux of the issue.)

CB

(Although, if I were to be pedantic then I would point out that the final part of that - "whilst accepting they may in time be shown to be wrong" - is neither a part of consensus nor even implied by consensus.)

Edited March 17, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

I think the difference doesn't really exist - what purpose does the official statement of consensus actually serve?

If everyone knows what the general view is then there is no need for the analysis and dissemination of that view.

If nobody knows what the general view is then the analysis and dissemination of that view is for the purpose of swaying others' opinions.

You don't go about forming a group of people to go through masses of research to form a viewpoint solely for the purpose of letting people know about it. Especially in science, where the majority view is beside the point.

Therefore, the official statement of consensus serves one function, and one function only: to silence (or reduce the credibility of) critics of that view. It is a pre-emptively defensive move, building a fortification around the mainstream view to fend off those who disagree.

I can't see anything about consensus that is beneficial to science.

CB

Actually lets look at this another way.

On occasions I reply to posts on 'Watts Up'. Now, apart from the insults (and the 'scientist X is a *****' stuff) there are several notable types of reply one gets. You get people saying you're wrong 'because consensus isn't science', you get asked for the impossible, asked for 'proof', you get various people going on about how science works (which, of course, is their way, the one true way science works...) and you get people banging on about people like Popper who had a view of what science is they like.

And the one common theme to that is? I think they are what you're going on about wrt consensus, they are all intimidatory and seek to stifle people of my kind of view! By doing that they distract from the argument I'm trying to put, the evidence the data and the theory I have...

So, if you like, I can see your pov.

Now, where to go with that?

So, here's a suggestion. Lets drop all these arguments about science itself. Lets not use consensus if you feel you're being stifled by it, and lets not also not stifle people like me by demanding proof all the time or demanding science be done in one way only according to the views of a prefered science philosopher.

I think, as ever, we should concentrate on the observations and the evidence and the data and the theory.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Devonian

[jethro]

http://american.com/archive/2010/march/when-to-doubt-a-scientific-consensus

[Devonian]

http://american.com/archive/2010/march/when-to-doubt-a-scientific-consensus

It's interesting.

Does that article offer any alternative science? Not that I've noticed. No, it attacks the consensus. But, why not (if it's the accepted , consensus view if you like, science that is wrong) simply state the science that is right?

Edited March 17, 2010 by Devonian

[jethro]

Because it's discussing the idea of consensus, not the rights and wrongs of science.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Actually lets look at this another way.

On occasions I reply to posts on 'Watts Up'. Now, apart from the insults (and the 'scientist X is a *****' stuff) there are several notable types of reply one gets. You get people saying you're wrong 'because consensus isn't science', you get asked for the impossible, asked for 'proof', you get various people going on about how science works (which, of course, is their way, the one true way science works...) and you get people banging on about people like Popper who had a view of what science is they like.

And the one common theme to that is? I think they are what you're going on about wrt consensus, they are all intimidatory and seek to stifle people of my kind of view! By doing that they distract from the argument I'm trying to put, the evidence the data and the theory I have...

Well, let's look at this for a moment, shall we?

When, exactly, did WUWT first arrive on the scene? Was it before or after the declaration of consensus?

Is the attitude of WUWT, and the supporters of it, a symptom of the declaration of consensus? To put it another way, is WUWT (and various other blogs) the way that it is because of the marginalisation of its position? Does it have to be (or think that it has to be) louder and more aggressive because this "consensus" is being hidden behind, in much the same way that a Chihuahua is generally more aggressive than a Great Dane?

The thing is that people of your kind of view are not going to be stifled, no matter how much people like WUWT may try, because they have the safety-net of consensus to fall back on. The WUWT people may distract from the argument you're trying to give, but what about their arguments, which are often ignored and scoffed at not because they are necessarily wrong, but rather because "they're not consensus".

And if I could just reiterate that I'm not saying that consensus science is always wrong - it's just not the way to do science.

So, if you like, I can see your pov.

Now, where to go with that?

So, here's a suggestion. Lets drop all these arguments about science itself. Lets not use consensus if you feel you're being stifled by it, and lets not also not stifle people like me by demanding proof all the time or demanding science be done in one way only according to the views of a prefered science philosopher.

I think, as ever, we should concentrate on the observations and the evidence and the data and the theory.

Whoa, hold up there a minute!

How many times have I suggested we argue the evidence and the data and the theory? I was one of the first (if not the first) on these boards to explicitly suggest just that. And how often have I, and others, tried to have a discussion about specific details? And how often do those who agree with the consensus actually bother to engage? How often have skeptical objections been disregarded on the basis that "the consensus doesn't agree with you, so therefore you're almost certainly wrong"?

I didn't start this thread because I wanted to argue about the AGW consensus. I started this thread because of the report that there is now a consensus on the Chixculub meteor impact's connection with the death of the dinosaurs.

I can see the arguments for consensus in the AGW debate (I don't agree with those arguments, but I can see them), but I fail to see the relevance in palaeontological matters.

This thread is about "consensus science" permeating science as a whole, which I believe is a dangerous thing (for science). It irks me that consensus science has become so deeply-rooted in the AGW debate, but it is a symptom of the deep-rooted political aspects of the debate. Consensus is, fundamentally, a political concept. So what place does it have in other realms of science, such as palaeontology, where there is no political aspect?

CB

[Devonian]

Well, let's look at this for a moment, shall we?

When, exactly, did WUWT first arrive on the scene? Was it before or after the declaration of consensus?

Is the attitude of WUWT, and the supporters of it, a symptom of the declaration of consensus? To put it another way, is WUWT (and various other blogs) the way that it is because of the marginalisation of its position? Does it have to be (or think that it has to be) louder and more aggressive because this "consensus" is being hidden behind, in much the same way that a Chihuahua is generally more aggressive than a Great Dane?

The thing is that people of your kind of view are not going to be stifled, no matter how much people like WUWT may try, because they have the safety-net of consensus to fall back on.

Absolutely wrong and rather belittling :winky: I think what I think because of the books and science I've read, nothing to do with safty nets or a consensus everything to do with observations, data and theory - OK?

The WUWT people may distract from the argument you're trying to give, but what about their arguments, which are often ignored and scoffed at not because they are necessarily wrong, but rather because "they're not consensus".

That's seldom the reply they get, mostly people try to argue with ...evidence, data etc etc etc

Anyway, when do I or other with views like mine use the word consensus? I actually find WUWT pretty damn intimidating I can tell you. There is near unamity there - which should point out how effect the tactic is.

And if I could just reiterate that I'm not saying that consensus science is always wrong - it's just not the way to do science.

Actually there is another point that's just dawned on me. Who, apart from you, actually talks of 'consensus science'? I can't think of anyone. Yes, I might have said there is a consensus, but 'consensus science'? I can't remember anyone saing there is such a thing because it doesn't exist - you can't have consensus science you can have a consensus but it's can't be a science.

Whoa, hold up there a minute!

How many times have I suggested we argue the evidence and the data and the theory? I was one of the first (if not the first) on these boards to explicitly suggest just that. And how often have I, and others, tried to have a discussion about specific details? And how often do those who agree with the consensus actually bother to engage? How often have skeptical objections been disregarded on the basis that "the consensus doesn't agree with you, so therefore you're almost certainly wrong"?

I didn't start this thread because I wanted to argue about the AGW consensus. I started this thread because of the report that there is now a consensus on the Chixculub meteor impact's connection with the death of the dinosaurs.

I can see the arguments for consensus in the AGW debate (I don't agree with those arguments, but I can see them), but I fail to see the relevance in palaeontological matters.

This thread is about "consensus science" permeating science as a whole, which I believe is a dangerous thing (for science). It irks me that consensus science has become so deeply-rooted in the AGW debate, but it is a symptom of the deep-rooted political aspects of the debate. Consensus is, fundamentally, a political concept. So what place does it have in other realms of science, such as palaeontology, where there is no political aspect?

CB

OK, lets see some examples where people have talked about 'consensus science' as opposed to the scientific consensus (which IS different).

Edited March 17, 2010 by Devonian

[Hiya]

Hiya

I appreciate that point of view, and I have wrestled with that idea, but I don't accept that it is good scientific practice to bypass problems. Science is about solving problems.

Science has a habit of leaping forward when a previously bypassed problem is solved (like when Einstein tackled the problem of the constancy of the speed of light head-on - Newton realised that there was a problem with his theory of gravitation but he bypassed it, even going so far as to note that he left the problem for other minds to tackle in the future).

Now, you could argue that Newton's laws served us very well for hundreds of years, and that Einstein's theories only refined Newton's work. But the thing is that Newton's laws (on the scale at which they were used) just worked. There was no real understanding of the laws, only an acceptance that they worked. Einstein's theories gave us the understanding and allowed science to leap forward, ironically paving the way for Quantum Mechanics which Einstein himself refuted all the way to his grave.

CB

Again I tend to disagree with the point in bold. I know from my area of research of problems or experiments that cannot be done, this in turn breeds a whole bubble of research round the problem that might not otherwise have been done. Then many years later the problem is solved and someone can review all the research that was done, correct or incorrect.

But you are correct about the leap forward after a problem is solved, a good situation to be in if it is in your field!

I agree, but it is also the case that any assumption on which any case is based is well documented primarily so that if there is a flaw in the underlying assumption then everything built upon such an assumption is necessarily invalidated.

I must admit that I am in two minds about this. Science is about being able to reproduce experiments so that others can verify, or otherwise. But how would we do that in climatology when super-computing in the order of zillions of calculations are required to execute the code? Should every person interested be able to afford a super-computer - or at least have access to one? We accept that the cost of entry to most sciences is years of study - but to accrue a fiscal penalty, too? Do we want to do that? Can we afford not to use super-computing?

Indeed, is the software peer-reviewed? If find that this is highly unlikely, given that scientific programming is a skill in and of itself. For instance, there are many many highly intelligent posters around here, and most know, intimately, of what it is they chat about.

But, as a challenge, take a look at the underlying mathematics required to implement fixed point arithmetic (here, PDF) It is hard. Of course, one might argue, some languages implement such arithmetic as part of the language, itself. However, shouldn't one understand the underlying principles rather than make the assumption that what you have is necessarily right?

If that is the case (and, frankly, I don't know) then every climatology 'lab' in the world is going to need to employ not just talented programmers, but computer scientists. And they cost a whole lot more.

Betwixt and between, I am. :winky:

I think I could sum it up by saying there is a time, place and selective audience for which a consensus belongs.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Absolutely wrong and rather belittling I think what I think because of the books and science I've read, nothing to do with safty nets or a consensus everything to do with observations, data and theory - OK?

First of all I was not talking about you specifically, or about any one person. I said, quite clearly, that the consensus view will not be stifled because there is always the consensus to fall back on - the power of the majority.

Besides - and this might come across as a bit of a personal attack, but since you've accused me of belittling you - you have claimed that you don't understand the LI, even when it was in its most basic form. How much of the books and science you have read have you understood well enough to make an informed decision? How often have you actually engaged in a discussion with observations, data and theory? In fact, how often have you said that you think such-and-such is wrong because most scientists are agreed on AGW?

Before you accuse someone of being "wrong and rather belittling", take the time to read and understand the point they are making.

That's seldom the reply they get, mostly people try to argue with ...evidence, data etc etc etc

But where do they get that "evidence, data etc etc etc"? Most people don't have any innate understanding of the evidence and data - they are regurgitating what the mainstream scientists have said. This becomes obvious when the same people who put forward this evidence and data, when questioned on specifics, are unable to actually engage in debate.

Anyway, when do I or other with views like mine use the word consensus? I actually find WUWT pretty damn intimidating I can tell you. There is near unamity there - which should point out how effect the tactic is.

Here we are, back on the word rather than the concept. You don't need to use the actual word to hide behind consensus. Here's some examples of your comments on other threads:

"...this is where we part company because, if you're right, it's a case of rewriting a whole science..."

"I'm not sure I'd equate the LI (which afaics, doesn't dismiss the role of CO2) with the whole body of atmosphere science which is the result of more than a century of test, observations and building on the shoulders of giants."

" I think AGW is a reality - in that there is and will be amount of human caused global warming because adding ghg to the atmosphere will have a warming effect. I think this is a scientific given, though I know a few people disagree about the properties of ghg's. However, I don't know how much it is or will be, but I accept the prediction because they, to me, make scientific sense."

"The IPCC reports are the hard work of many thousands of scientists..."

When I have more time I'll see how far back I can go, but you alone (along with several others) have repeatedly fallen back on a deferral to authority.

Actually there is another point that's just dawned on me. Who, apart from you, actually talks of 'consensus science'? I can't think of anyone. Yes, I might have said there is a consensus, but 'consensus science'? I can't remember anyone saing there is such a thing because it doesn't exist - you can't have consensus science you can have a consensus but it's can't be a science.

Lots of people do, Dev - I didn't just make the phrase up. Wikipedia even has a page on "scientific consensus" in which they specifically talk about its use in politics. "Consensus science" is science conducted under the acceptance of a consensus.

OK, lets see some examples where people have talked about 'consensus science' as opposed to the scientific consensus (which IS different).

That's a matter of semantics, and has nothing to do with this discussion.

CB

Edited March 17, 2010 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

First of all I was not talking about you specifically, or about any one person. I said, quite clearly, that the consensus view will not be stifled because there is always the consensus to fall back on - the power of the majority.

Besides - and this might come across as a bit of a personal attack, but since you've accused me of belittling you - you have claimed that you don't understand the LI, even when it was in its most basic form. How much of the books and science you have read have you understood well enough to make an informed decision? How often have you actually engaged in a discussion with observations, data and theory? In fact, how often have you said that you think such-and-such is wrong because most scientists are agreed on AGW?

Before you accuse someone of being "wrong and rather belittling", take the time to read and understand the point they are making.

Rather typical of the approach you adopt sometimes CB - I'll leave it at that.

But where do they get that "evidence, data etc etc etc"? Most people don't have any innate understanding of the evidence and data - they are regurgitating what the mainstream scientists have said. This becomes obvious when the same people who put forward this evidence and data, when questioned on specifics, are unable to actually engage in debate.

Here we are, back on the word rather than the concept. You don't need to use the actual word to hide behind consensus. Here's some examples of your comments on other threads:

"...this is where we part company because, if you're right, it's a case of rewriting a whole science..."

"I'm not sure I'd equate the LI (which afaics, doesn't dismiss the role of CO2) with the whole body of atmosphere science which is the result of more than a century of test, observations and building on the shoulders of giants."

" I think AGW is a reality - in that there is and will be amount of human caused global warming because adding ghg to the atmosphere will have a warming effect. I think this is a scientific given, though I know a few people disagree about the properties of ghg's. However, I don't know how much it is or will be, but I accept the prediction because they, to me, make scientific sense."

"The IPCC reports are the hard work of many thousands of scientists..."

When I have more time I'll see how far back I can go, but you alone (along with several others) have repeatedly fallen back on a deferral to authority.

But you put me in a no win situation. Defer to scientists and I get accused to deferring to scientists or if I say I'm not as informed as the scientists and I get accused of being, effectively, thick. So the option left is to say I know better than the scientists, that they're wrong, and become someone who doesn't accept the science as understood. Great...

Lots of people do, Dev - I didn't just make the phrase up. Wikipedia even has a page on "scientific consensus" in which they specifically talk about its use in politics. "Consensus science" is science conducted under the acceptance of a consensus.

There is a scientific consensus, there is no such thing as 'consensus science'.

That's a matter of semantics, and has nothing to do with this discussion.

CB

I think it has everything to do with it actually. It's a thread that is playing with words.

[Essan]

And what is the point of that?

What is the point of stating the scientific position rather than misleading people?

Dunno, but this is just like one of those irritating children's games where whatever you say they keep asking "why?" ......

[VillagePlank]

Should a theory be put to a vote?

[Thundery wintry showers]

The "consensus" argument can actually have some validity if a group of people have independently analysed something, and come up with similar conclusions (giving a consensus) and someone says "the fact that these people have independently reached similar conclusions is a compelling case for the conclusions being more likely to be right than alternative theories".

It can be fallacious when the consensus is reached via groupthink, e.g. "there's a consensus that rule X is right, and that consensus is based on the principle 'rules are rules', and so this provides evidence for the correctness of X". It is also always fallacious when expressed in a black-and-white rather than probabilistic way, like "there's a consensus so it must be right".