Isn’t it the case that “consensus” in the sciences is just a shorthand for “we agree that this is most likely to be true”?
If I were conversing with a scientist and I asked about possibility x, and they disagreed with it for the reason that “the consensus is…”, I would assume that they are not saying possibility x is wrong, but rather that they would need really good evidence to agree that x is correct.
Expert consensus has a different role than the OP. It’s a statement made by people who are intimately familiar with a body of evidence and are consolidating the many narratives of that evidence into clear statements.
Yes, it’s not true merely because they say it’s true. It’s most likely true because these experts have analyzed the thousand tiny individual pieces of evidence out there and have determined they are all pointing to the same key conclusions. That’s not an argumentum ad populum, that’s analysis and interpretation. Ignoring that because you saw some TikTok video is the actual fallacy (argument from authority.)
Yes but it’s worth pointing out that peer review is also a form of consensus-building. It’s not a perfect process, but it’s pretty workable if everyone’s pulling in the same direction.
Peer review is a sanity check, but many incorrect theories disproven later passed peer review. I only point out science as a the one group of people who should be above appeals to authority or consensus but they are still very influenced by it.
Kinda my point. Even the scientific process is imperfect. It’s definitely workable, but all our theories are less “really real” and more a highly refined consensus that is only valid while we lack a better one. All firm beliefs require a leap of faith, however small.
The scientific method states quite clearly that you can never prove anything, only disprove.
Failure to disprove warrants publication to try to get other people to disprove.
But it’s still rarely properly applied, especially when you get further away from theoretical research.
Yeah, you are right. Too many people in the sciences believe this as well. Science is about repeatability and falsifiable hypothesis…
Isn’t it the case that “consensus” in the sciences is just a shorthand for “we agree that this is most likely to be true”?
If I were conversing with a scientist and I asked about possibility x, and they disagreed with it for the reason that “the consensus is…”, I would assume that they are not saying possibility x is wrong, but rather that they would need really good evidence to agree that x is correct.
I don’t remember the exact quote, but I love the thing about “the thing about science is that it doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not.”
Expert consensus has a different role than the OP. It’s a statement made by people who are intimately familiar with a body of evidence and are consolidating the many narratives of that evidence into clear statements.
Yes, it’s not true merely because they say it’s true. It’s most likely true because these experts have analyzed the thousand tiny individual pieces of evidence out there and have determined they are all pointing to the same key conclusions. That’s not an argumentum ad populum, that’s analysis and interpretation. Ignoring that because you saw some TikTok video is the actual fallacy (argument from authority.)
Yes but it’s worth pointing out that peer review is also a form of consensus-building. It’s not a perfect process, but it’s pretty workable if everyone’s pulling in the same direction.
Peer review is a sanity check, but many incorrect theories disproven later passed peer review. I only point out science as a the one group of people who should be above appeals to authority or consensus but they are still very influenced by it.
Kinda my point. Even the scientific process is imperfect. It’s definitely workable, but all our theories are less “really real” and more a highly refined consensus that is only valid while we lack a better one. All firm beliefs require a leap of faith, however small.
The scientific method states quite clearly that you can never prove anything, only disprove. Failure to disprove warrants publication to try to get other people to disprove. But it’s still rarely properly applied, especially when you get further away from theoretical research.