[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And I said consensus is meaningless in Science.

No ot is not meaningless it is everything. Guess that’s why you’re not a scientist.

Albert Einstein was. He wasn't a fan of consensus. Good enough for me:

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

“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.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]

“… Finally, 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.”

~Michael Crichton~

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And I said consensus is meaningless in Science.

No ot is not meaningless it is everything. Guess that’s why you’re not a scientist.

Albert Einstein was. He wasn't a fan of consensus. Good enough for me:

That only works AFTER the consensus finally accepts that you’re right. The guy who defies consensus to argue that the world is really flat is not considered a genius. Einstein may have defied consensus but the consensus accepted he was right and so his theories became part of the consensus. Get it?

[DrCaleb]

It's funny, but I can't find anyone who will actually attribute that quote to Professor Albert. Lots claim he said it, but none say when or where.



And Peer Review is consensus, and Einstein wrote many letters to colleagues seeking verification of his theories. He sought consensus.

[PluggyRug]

There was a brilliant guy who wanted to design a Unicorn but the consensus went against him and we ended up with a Camel.

[N_Fiddledog]

Peer Review is not consensus, but there are many well known flaws in it. For example you might be able to sell it as 'consensus' of a kind of administrative elite who have set themselves up as gatekeepers. It has its uses though. It's what you've got until something better comes along.

I'm not sure the "Out of Africa" hypothesis really qualifies as consensus either. I'm not sure how much consensus certainty there is there. It is the most prevalent working hypothesis though. As such it has some use. So yeah, that is similar to peer review.

And seeing as Beave wants to talk about flat earthers, is he forgetting that at one time that was the consensus?

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

Max Planck, one of the fathers, with Albert Einstein, of modern physics, put it this way:

“New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.”

(Address on the 25th anniversary of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Gesellschaft, January 1936, as quoted in Surviving the Swastika: Scientific Research in Nazi Germany, 1993).

Also...

$1:

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts
~Richard Feynman~

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.
~Michael Crichton~

“If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part
~Richard Feynman~

Among the authorities it is generally agreed that the Earth is at rest in the middle of the universe, and they regard it as inconceivable and even ridiculous to hold the opposite opinion. However, if we consider it more closely the question will be seen to be still unsettled, and so decidedly not to be despised. For every apparent change in respect of position is due to motion of the object observed, or of the observer, or indeed to an unequal change of both.
~Nicolaus Copernicus~

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's funny, but I can't find anyone who will actually attribute that quote to Professor Albert.

Try this one below.

(If you're still having trouble add the term "Stephen Hawking.")

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Peer Review is not consensus, but there are many well known flaws in it. For example you might be able to sell it as 'consensus' of a kind of administrative elite who have set themselves up as gatekeepers. It has its uses though. It's what you've got until something better comes along.

I'm not sure the "Out of Africa" hypothesis really qualifies as consensus either. I'm not sure how much consensus certainty there is there. It is the most prevalent working hypothesis though. As such it has some use. So yeah, that is similar to peer review.

And seeing as Beave wants to talk about flat earthers, is he forgetting that at one time that was the consensus?

So wrong. We’re talking about SCIENTIFIC consensus here, not the religious/superstitious consensus that conservatives normally deal in. There was never any scientific consensus that the world was flat. Even most ancient cultures knew it was round. Science encourages dissenting opinion and debate and scientific consensus eventually forms around the ideas with the most merit. This directly opposite to how conservatives cling to their beliefs so it’s not surprising you don’t understand.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So wrong. We’re talking about SCIENTIFIC consensus here, not the religious/superstitious consensus that conservatives normally deal in. There was never any scientific consensus that the world was flat. Even most ancient cultures knew it was round.

Pretty sure it was Eratosthenes, around 250BCE. He measured Earth's circumference within a couple hundred KM.

So much for that whole Chris Columbus myth, eh?

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So wrong. We’re talking about SCIENTIFIC consensus here, not the religious/superstitious consensus that conservatives normally deal in. There was never any scientific consensus that the world was flat.

I notice you don't want to talk about Feynman, Einstein, and Copernicus. I could mention a star lineup of big names of science who have gone against the consensus if you like.

But you want to talk about the reply to your crack about flat earthers. Well true, those fringe wackos you brought up aren't scientists but I'm not seeing your point. If you don't want to talk about them, don't talk about them.

And the political consensus can become scientific consensus. See Lysenko. Some of us would mention the political charged movement that's claiming consensus on a human caused apocalypse of nice weather that's currently calling itself "Climate Change."

Consensus - scientific and public - can be controlled by power at the top in general. Too bad Galileo isn't around. You could ask him about it.

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... ensus.html

[Tricks]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So wrong. We’re talking about SCIENTIFIC consensus here, not the religious/superstitious consensus that conservatives normally deal in. There was never any scientific consensus that the world was flat. Even most ancient cultures knew it was round.

Pretty sure it was Eratosthenes, around 250BCE. He measured Earth's circumference within a couple hundred KM.

So much for that whole Chris Columbus myth, eh?

Yep, it was well established the earth was round. Columbus fucked his math up and thought it was smaller, so he thought it was shorter going around. So same idea, but because he was incompetent, not revolutionary.