Talk:Scientific consensus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Talk:Scientific consensus/archive1 (Nov 2004 - Jan 2005)

Contents

[edit] Merge from consensus science

The result of the VfD on consensus science was, weakly, that it should be merged here. Anybody who feels able to do that is hereby invited to. dbenbenn | talk 00:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Note however there was strong opposition to the POV nature of some of that page. Please merge carefully, if at all. I would rather it had been deleted (well, I listed it).
I think the majority would probably prefer the two articles separate given their different scopes, if a poll were specifically conducted on the issue of merging. I'm not sure if it's quite correct to conclude a merge as the final result when the vast majority did not recommend merging. — Cortonin | Talk 09:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, looking at it again, you're probably right. "No consensus" would have been more accurate. Anyway, what actually happens to it depends solely on what people here decide to do, regardless of what the poll indicated. dbenbenn | talk 18:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If it is to be merged here, it should be into a distinct and separate section. The article as it is now is far less POV and objectionable than it was at the start so perhaps it should remain separate - it doesn't really fit here. If it must be merged, then junk science might be a better destination for it rather than here as that's what it is. -Vsmith 17:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You make a good point that it might fit better under junk science than here, seeing as how they are at least the same type of phenomenon. I just fear that categorizing it under junk science would perhaps be making too strong of a statement about consensus science, since junk science tends to imply the conclusions are definitively incorrect, while consensus science instead simply tends to criticize the methodology of drawing conclusions. I think keeping the concepts distinct and separate yields the greatest potential for clarity in this case, and there's no better way to do that than keeping it in a separate article. — Cortonin | Talk 18:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the view that "consensus science" is a kind of junk science should be attributed to an advocate - perhaps someone like Michael Crichton. Wikipedia shouldn't take a stand on this issue.

Even when I agree with a point of view, I often recognize that it's not Wikipedia's job to identify who is right in a dispute, but merely to describe the dispute fairly. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 16:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hijacked by POV Warriors

I'm delighted to see this page has become hijacked by the Anti-GW POV brigade. This article has become a nigh incomprehensible rant filled with spelling mistakes, gramatical errors and confusing citations. The only real content that wasn't original research and was cited using a real Philosphy of Science paper was deleted by Ed, for reasons best known to himself. One cannot help feel that people who are editing this page are disinterested in exploring SC as a concept, and more in pushing their agenda. The version of the article I wrote[1] is still, by far, better than the version currently up by anyone's objective standards. This truly demonstrates the high levels of ignorance within Wikipedia which should be a repository of knowledge rather than propoganda. --Axon 11:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Is it really that bad? I'm generally seen as being quite "pro" GW (though I am of course scrupulously neutral) and it doesn't seem so terrible. I've made a few minor edits.
WMC sez: "I'm generally seen as being quite "pro" GW (though I am of course scrupulously neutral)"... And here we thought all this time that William doesn't have a sense of humor.  ;->--JonGwynne 23:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) If you've got nothing useful to say, why not keep quiet, instead of stirring up trouble?
Ah, but I have a great deal to say which is useful, just because you don't like it doesn't mean you should be telling me to shut up. The idea that you consider yourself "scrupulously neutral" is too absurd not to draw satirical comment. You are so obviously and clearly (even grotesquely) partisan that, like all zealots, you simply can't see it and that's what makes people like you dangerous. You're like Thomas Penfield Jackson with regard to Microsoft. You're so biased that you see your bias as neutrality and other people's actual neutrality as bias. You know why the environmental movement is having such trouble? It is because people like you are such easy targets for the opposition. You are exasperating to pragmatic environmentalists like me because you're too blinded by your idealogy to see reason.--JonGwynne 13:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Axon, it does appear that there were some good elements in the older page. I made an attempt to reintegrate some of those elements with the current page. — Cortonin | Talk 23:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Axon, sorry about unwarranted deletions. Please put back what I deleted (clearly marked as the point of view of the philosopher you had cited). I didn't object to the info being in the article but that it was presented as if it were self-evident (nothing is self-evident in philosophy) or as represented a standard operating procedure (nothing is that neat or honest in science).
The reason science works is that other scientists check up on your work; that is what keeps you honest. If you go around saying cell phones cause brain tumors, others will try to reproduce your results. When they fail, your results are junked and people keep using cell phones. (If enough of them were to succeed, then it would become common knowledge . . .) --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 14:43, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the article has been hijacked by Kyoto activits, obviously. The climate change issue should be removed from the examples of "scientifc consensus" and replaced by a non-debatable example if we are to consider this an encyclopedic entry. There are plenty of possibilities (gravity being one). Although there is a mainstream opinion about climate change, it is far from being neutral for an encyclopedia to call consensus the actual mainstream opinion on climate change. There are plenty of contradictory opinions by scientifcs of various backgrounds and nationalities. The American Heritage Dictionnary defines consensus as "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole". I suggest careful reading of the reference to Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Ennemies that is cited below. I also suggest careful reading of Wiki's page on epistemology. --Childhood's End 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making

Removed the following for discussion:

Because decisions must sometimes be made before there is complete certainty, scientific consensus is sometimes affected more by the political decisions desired by the scientists in a particular field than by the certainty of the science in that field. This effect is sometimes referred to as a consensus science.
  • 1st: in science, complete certainty is non-existant.
  • 2nd: scientists are human (believe it or not :-) and not usually apolitical. And yes, at times their human and political foibles lead them to make non-scientific decisions and statements. Simply put scientists can also act as advocates. If in their advocacy they lean more on consensus than on evidence it needs pointing out and they should rightly be called on it. The phrase is sometimes affected more in the exerpt above appears to me rather a weasel phrase. If you can be more specific it might work better.
  • 3rd: the phrase This effect is sometimes referred to as a consensus science seems dubious to me - as is the consensus science article. The so-called effect is simply a scientist acting as a political animal. Agreed, that scientists when acting this way may and often do lean on their scientific credentials to give their political views more umph and they should be called on that also.
  • 4th: the insertion of this para just prior to the IPCC example seems inappropriate unless your POV is that it applies to said example, then it's just POV.

Vsmith 03:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • 1, The word "complete certainty" was following from the paragraph above which says "decisions must be made without complete certainty". Perhaps you will be happy if the word "complete" is removed from the included paragraph. — Cortonin | Talk 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 2, No, I cannot be more specific, because anything more specific would be disputed on the basis of its specificity. I do not believe it is a "weasel phrase", simply because it doesn't provide a convenient straw man. — Cortonin | Talk 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 3, Yes, we're all aware that you don't like the existence of the consensus science article. And yes, scientists should be called on the use of their scientific credentials when used to give their political views more umph. In fact, this is what the term consensus science is used for. You might personally like the term more if you weren't so focused on its use to describe climate research. — Cortonin | Talk 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 4, I paid no attention to the paragraph which followed, I was inserting it after the paragraph which preceded it, as it appropriately and logically follows from that paragraph. Upon more careful inspection, I think the IPCC/Kyoto paragraph is off-topic for that section (and far too specific for an article on scientific consensus, which is not really about climate change), so I will remove that paragraph instead. — Cortonin | Talk 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph that followed was a specific example to show the inter-relationship between political need for action and scientific consensus in a field with obvious uncertainties. The union of politicians working with science specialists in the IPCC to attempt to find consensus and chart further research and possible courses of action is a most valid example.
I don't think specific examples are really necessary here, since the article is about scientific consensus. There's a lot to say about scientific consensus and the way it functions as a part of the philosophy and method of science without invoking specific controversial examples. — Cortonin | Talk 14:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the consensus science article should be renamed consensus political action involving science or some such. I seem to recall that you said it wasn't science as did Crichton. -Vsmith 16:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is "junk science" science? It has the word "science" in it, so do you find the term equally confusing? Also, please leave your personal feelings about the existence of the consensus science article out of the editing of this page. — Cortonin | Talk 14:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm supposed to leave my personal feelings about ... consensus science out.... Why should I? you edits appear to me to be mainly pushing your personal feelings about it. The phrase scientific consensus is sometimes affected more by the political decisions desired by the scientists in a particular field is just a weasel phrase without specific and substantinal instances in support. And as such has little meaning beyond your POV. We also don't need the sigh in the edit summary - it's a subtle insult and not conducive to civil discourse. Also, I don't find the consensus science concept as much confusing as a political garbage term for which some around here want to blame science. It's a term used by politicians, cause advocates, journalists, and disgruntled science fiction writers. -Vsmith 15:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The "sigh" is because it's quite frustrating to wake up every morning and see every contribution to a certain subset of articles reverted every single day. It's annoying and unproductive, and I would like people on this subset of articles to start working together rather than in constant opposition. — Cortonin | Talk 17:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And I don't "blame science" for anything. I blame certain scientists for letting politics get in the WAY of science. It's not a problem of science or of the scientific method, it's a problem of people. And unfortunately, science must always be done by people, so these problems become part of science. These problems manifest quite readily in the scientific consensus because while it might be nice if the consensus were always about the facts of the science, that's not how consensus is actually determined in practice. Consensus comes about by the collective opinions of those working in a particular field, and thus it becomes a people problem, and psychology and politics become entangled. — Cortonin | Talk 17:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] criticism

Vsmith reverted commenting: "remove rambling crit section - read the section: Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making first"

1) that section does not criticize the notion of appeals to "scientific consensus." criticism of the concept itself is totally absent from the page.
2) "rambling" is an issue for editing, not deletion.
3) the section was an npov summary of a pov, with quotations from prominent individuals representing the pov. why is it inappropriate for a page about the idea they're criticizing?

why? Ungtss 16:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me to be an acceptable topic to touch on, but considering all the elements involved with scientific consensus, perhaps the section could be a little smaller. It seems there should still be a mention of it, though, since it was a prominent criticism about certain usage of scientific consensus. — Cortonin | Talk 16:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about this:

[edit] proposed criticism section

[edit] Criticism of appeals to "scientific consensus"

While scientific consensus is considered by many to be a valid means of ascertaining the validity of a scientific assertion, others criticize the concept as an empty appeal to authority often symptomatic of a lack of merit. Karl Popper summarized this critique in The Open Society and its Enemies when he wrote, "I do not believe that success proves anything." Similarly, Michael Crichton argued against appeals to the "scientific community" or "consensus of scientists" in the Caltech Michelin Lecture entitled "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

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.

[edit] Discussion

You could perhaps trim out the first paragraph on "I want to pause here and talk" (which is a bit wordy and epideictic), and leave the last two paragraphs as a more clear and concise expression of his views. — Cortonin | Talk 16:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. Not quite as POV pushy. I would like to see the Popper quote in context, don't have the book and it's been awhile. Also think the Crichton quote is a bit much (seems to be everyone's favorite around here :-) - yes he is a good writer of fiction and yes, he did give a speech with a doozey of a title, but his credentials in science are nowhere near to the proportion of fame he has both here and in the real world. So, maybe cut the length of the quote or better yet find more real scientist criticisms. Also note the criticism inherently built in to the sections Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making and Scientific consensus and the scientific minority. -Vsmith 17:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also, please read the extended discussion of Crichton earlier on this talk page - to sum it up: Not acceptable :-) -Vsmith 01:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i think the proposed edit is a good one -- so i'll make it -- as to the dialogue at the beginning of the page and your appeal for "real scientist criticisms," i think you've encapsulated the problem quite nicely. the quote is not admissible unless it comes from a "reputable source." but who determines what sources are "reputable?" why ... the "scientific consensus," of course!!! it doesn't matter if what crichton says make SENSE -- he doesn't have the proper CREDENTIALS, so he's out. Ungtss 20:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 16:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)) But does what Crichton say make sense? I don't think it does.
Not that I speak for him, but I believe what Crichton was trying to say is that science is about fact, and consensus is about opinions, and therefore the scientific consensus is simply the opinions about the facts, which have nothing at all to do with the facts themselves. And while what he says is a simplification of the matter, it's certainly a point worthy of philosophical and practical consideration for anyone interested in making sure science works correctly. — Cortonin | Talk 17:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Crichton is well represented in the consensus science article, where his quote fits better - don't need to duplicate here where it doesn't really apply. As for Popper, I tried a search on Amazon search wi/in the text feature and bound no match - so am quite dubious about it and the context. How about you provide us with the context of the quote and we'll see if it fits. I have become quite skeptical of people quoting out of context around here. The problem encapsulated: Tabloid journalism, etc. are not valid refs. -Vsmith 16:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

you're right -- consensus science does it better -- i didn't know that page existed. i'll delete the section here. Ungtss 16:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 16:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)) OK, so its gone now. I'd like to record my doubts about the Popper quote and text around it. I'm doubtful that he was talking about consensus. I think he was just expressing his "falsifiability" views, but without a page # its rather hard to know. Also: no-one (well certainly not me) is saying "there is a consensus on this; thereofre this *proves* such-and-such". This is a misunderstanding. The point is, that when decisions have to be made about what to do, *then* you need to look at the consensus, if it exists in a given area.
Actually, you, and others, say all the time around here that no one should question the current consensus,
(William M. Connolley 20:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)) No, I say no such thing. *Scientists* should constantly question the consensus. The role of *wikipedia* however is very different: is it to give primacy to the consensus.
in two sentences, you managed to reassert the high priesthood of scientists (giving only THEM the right to question -- when in fact, it is the duty of human BEINGS to question the consensus, regardless of what paper they have behind their name), and re/misdefined npov (which does NOT give primacy to consensus, but give primacy to NEUTRALITY). Ungtss 20:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
and there are plenty of sources that are referenced which imply the same thing. My scientific training teaches quite the opposite. It teaches to accept the conclusions of past science as a foundation, but then question and challenge each of them and the limits of those conclusions, because almost all revelations come from overturning or qualifying past or current ideas. Any idea which can't stand up to a simple reasoned challenge has a problem, weakness, or incompleteness, and consensus makes a poor bandaid for those things. — Cortonin | Talk 17:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You're a Linux man, so perhaps you've heard Torvalds's response to people who make claims about what they think would work in the kernel. He simply replies, "Show me code." That concept carries quite well to science. If a respected scientist comes running into your office screaming, "We have to take everyone and move them below 40 degrees latitude, the top and bottom of the Earth are going to be destroyed, the consensus of everyone I asked says so!" Are you going to say, "Well, if the consensus says so, then let's go," or are you going to say, "Show me evidence."? — Cortonin | Talk 17:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
well said, sir:). Ungtss 19:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)) No, badly said. Cortonin is confusing scientific research with the situation on wikipedia. Furthermore, the evidence has been shown: http://www.ipcc.ch/ and references therein. You are coming very close to the logical fallacy of: "science isn't done by consensus; there is a consensus on X; *therefore* X must be wrong".
he said no such thing. He said, "don't tell me what scientists say. tell my why scientists say it." Ungtss 20:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cortonin said: any idea which can't stand up to a simple reasoned challenge has a problem, weakness, or incompleteness, and consensus makes a poor bandaid for those things. In the face of incomplete data there is always need to evaluation. The idea of a consensus is that it attempts to express what most specialists in the field conclude is the best explanation, taking into account uncertainties, data quality, knowledge gaps, etc. Those conclusions then need to stand up to scrutiny by their peers. Work done by a body like the IPCC attempts to get a broad enough range of specialists together to have people able to evaluate the many components of the models, of the science. No one is a specialist in enough areas to truly evaluate all the research.
The Thorvalds example is a bad example. It isn't that claims are being made without data. The data is there. But if someone showed me Linux code, it would be meaningless to me. If I chose to use something, that decision would be based on consensus. Similarly, if I want to use the output of a GCM to apply to make predictions about land-use change, I would have to accept the opinions of others as to which was the best model. I could learn all there is to learn about them (I've got a few years to spare, right?), I could pick my favourite maveric and ask him what to pick or I 'could try to figure out what the consensus was on GCMs, figure out what the main objections were to the models, and make a decision based on consensus. The data isn't hidden, but my own ignorance makes consensus a useful tool. The consensus may change over time, but it's certainly more valuable to look for consensus than it is to try to interpret data that you can't understand, or to simply reject the consensus because someone says it's not a good idea. Guettarda 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
rough translation: "There are a lot of unanswered questions and it takes too much work to actually learn about the issues and evaluate the evidence, so let's allow scientists make our guesses and policies for us instead of actually thinking for ourselves." Ungtss 23:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't paraphrase (1) inaccurately, and (2) patronisingly. The first part is half right - figure out what the quality of the consensus is, and then decide whether the information is useful or not. Either one can accept "consensus" as useful, or one can do one's own research, spend the 5+ years it takes to get a degree, postdoc for a few more years doing other people's research, publish obsessively until one gets to the stage where you can get your own grants, and do the research oneself because one thinks that scientists are a bunch of politically motivated liars. Or one can do like politicians, listen to expert opinion, and then do whatever they think will either get the most votes or put the most money and power in the hands of their cronies. Simple enough set of choices. The system of consensus works because they pay-off for rocking the boat is high (although, so is the risk).

As for: so let's allow scientists make our guesses and policies for us instead of actually thinking for ourselves - I have no idea how that can be extracted from what I said. Because you are not dealing with a cabal, but instead with a group where one of the best routes to fame is to prove everyone else wrong, then you have a source of information which is likely to be higher quality than that produced by other sources. You are free to accept it or be skeptical. But to simply be a nay-sayer and say "prove it!" whenever someone says something is grounds only for inaction. "Not thinking" is what most people do. Most people are happy with reasonable questions. But to answer "show me the data" when the data are already there...maybe you should tell that to a weather man the next time they tell you a tornado or hurricane is coming your way. "90% chance a hurricane will hit? You've got to come better than that - if you can't give me 95% I cannot, as a scientist, reject the null, so I'm not evacuating! Take that you elitist cabal!" Guettarda 00:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<Either one can accept "consensus" as useful, or one can do one's own research, spend the 5+ years it takes to get a degree, postdoc for a few more years doing other people's research, publish obsessively until one gets to the stage where you can get your own grants, and do the research oneself because one thinks that scientists are a bunch of politically motivated liars.>>

False dichotomy. one can also require scientists to EXPLAIN and JUSTIFY their conclusions with REASON and EVIDENCE to general satisfaction. Ungtss 13:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<But to simply be a nay-sayer and say "prove it!" whenever someone says something is grounds only for inaction.>>

1) non-sequitur. to say "Prove it!" is not ground only for inaction, but for CAUTION until adequate reason and EVIDENCE have been presented. surely more caution would have been appropriate when the "scientific consensus" supported Eugenics. Perhaps if we'd questioned them to OUR satisfaction, things might have gone differently. as it was, the only people FIGHTING eugenics were CHRISTIANS ... but of course, they weren't "scientific," so they had no place in public discourse in the new and "scientific" world. Ungtss 13:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<maybe you should tell that to a weather man the next time they tell you a tornado or hurricane is coming your way.>> False analogy.

1) they can observe the event first hand so it's not an ambiguous or open question (which differentiates it from assertions about the past or the future).
2) they have satellite images to satisfy the skeptical.
3) Scientists CAN'T tell us when a storm is coming our way -- they can tell us a storm MIGHT be coming our way, and give us a range of probabilities that we'll get hit -- it is the duty of MAINSTREAM decision-makers make their decisions based on those probabilities, rather than simply taking the "scientific policy makers" at their word. Ungtss 13:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] consensus science in intro

why is it absolutely unacceptable to have a brief link to the topic in the intro, when people might well be LOOKING for that discussion when they come to this page? Ungtss 16:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is in the article. It is not a major part of the article, therefore doesn't need to be in the intro. Seekers can find it - and maybe will learn someting along the way. -Vsmith 16:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
what makes you say it isn't a major part of the article? Ungtss 17:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Simple. Consensus science is a description of a minor abberation where a scientist or more likely a politician or cause advocate misreads what scientific consensus means. Of course you probably like it there as a wedge in your attempt to discredit science - but that is just your POV. -Vsmith 17:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
so your argument is that it's only a "minor abberation." seems to me that's your pov -- a blind faith in scientists ... to the point of allowing them to write our theology for us despite demonstrable incompentance in the area. but why is your pov as to how often this "aberration" occurs relevent to the positioning of the link within the article? I want it there simply because i came to this article looking for THAT article, and i think we need to have easy access there from here, just as we have easy access here from there.

my rational: allowing easy access to a HIGHLY relevent article. Your goal: umm ... saving half a line of space in the intro?

justification please? Ungtss 17:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Both your arguments are POV. The fact is this is not a disambiguation page so there is no prerequisite to point people to other pages. To put it in the intro is wrong as it is irrelevant there.--LexCorp 17:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
how is allowing access to a relevent article pov? certainly there's no prerequisite to point people elsewhere, but i think it HELPS, and is there any reason NOT to? Finally, abuses of scientific consensus ARE relevent to the concept, and that's why i think we need to have access to those abuses in the intro. thoughts? Ungtss 18:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the point is that the link exist within the article in its relevant section and thus it is irrelevant in the intro. --LexCorp 18:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
if there is a section on the topic in the article, then the link IS relevent to the article. the purpose of the intro to is give a basic introduction to the topic, including the major salient points. one of those salient points is consensus science, and the intro provides easy access to it. there's the benefit. what harm does it do? Ungtss 18:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the point is that some people (including me) do not consider it a salient point at all and wikipedia policy on NPOV allows for the introduction of diverging views but in their relative subheading so as not to confuse the matter being presented and not in the intro. This was already taken place in this article so I just can't undestand your actitude. The harm is that if it is in the intro then it is represented as more salint point that it really is. --LexCorp 18:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<<some people (including me) do not consider it a salient point at all>>
1) if consensus science is not a salient point at all, then why is it in the article?
If it where for me it would not be there. But then you will cry POV. Thus it is included to make the article more NPOV. --LexCorp 00:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
agreed. in my view, npov is the article translates easily into npov in the intro. Ungtss 00:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It may translate easily for you but then it will be I who cries POV.--LexCorp 00:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i don't see how it's pov to provide a link to an article on a highly related concept in the introduction. i see that as simply good article writing. why is it BAD to have this link where people can get to it? Ungtss 00:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the link is already provided in a section of the article where it is more relevant and in the See Also section. To upgrade it to the intro would give the impresion of been much more relevant than it really is. And thus making it no NPOV. --LexCorp 00:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
providing links in the intro is pov, because it makes the links seem too relevent? that's a new one by me. seems to me it would be foolish NOT to provide a link to an article which uses the exact same two words in reverse order (Scientific consensus --> Consensus science) in order to aid in encyclopedia navigation, and that the provision of links is not an indication of relevence whatsoever, least of all one that would harm article quality. Ungtss 01:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Round and round we go. You imply that I want to shut the link altogether. I will remind you that it appears further into the text and in the “see also” section. As to your question "providing links in the intro is pov, because it makes the links seem too relevent?" my answer is yes it makes it look more relevant to the subject matter being discuss. The similarity of (Scientific consensus --> Consensus science) just gives strength to my argument of it been a neologism to confuse the matter. I already discussed the matter with you for "science" and "creation science". As for the quality, introducing POV does not improve the article.--LexCorp 01:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
all i see about is proof by assertion without any reasoning as to WHY it's pov to have that link up top, but if it's that important to you, i'll give:(. Ungtss 01:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Reason already established: To upgrade it to the intro would give the impresion of been much more relevant than it really is. --LexCorp 02:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
again, i don't see how it gives that impression, or why giving that impression would be pov in and of itself, or how even if it DID, it wouldn't be outweighed by the benefit of the easily accessible link. but since it's important enough to you to fight this long, i'll give up:). Ungtss 02:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I do fell that the link is already well accessible from the article and the See Also Section. --LexCorp 02:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2) If it is in the article (and indeed it is), and relevent (which it is also, as an important issue regarding the use of scientific consensus in political circles today) then what's the harm in briefly mentioning it at the end of the intro, to aid people in finding what they're looking for? Ungtss 20:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An Important and relevant issue just because at the end of that section says "This distortion of scientific consensus toward ideological or political ends has been criticized and referred to as consensus science" is overstating the matter. I consider it really irrelevant and a fabricated neologism just to carry on a "confusion by terminology war". --LexCorp 00:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
valid concern. i will try to tone it down. Ungtss 00:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i'm not seeing a "confusion by terminology war." look at the history of consensus science. i didn't even know it was there until recently -- the term is used quite often, is not confusing, and is highly related to the topic at hand. what harm!? i ask. Ungtss 00:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am not referring to this article per se but to the tactic used by creationist to confuse people by using neologism without enough information to make a critical judgment. Projects like this lend themselves beautifully to such a tactic.--LexCorp 01:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i don't see any reference to creationism on the consensus science page. on the contrary, i see a lot about al gore and global warming, and oddly enough creationists are used as an EXAMPLE of consensus science. how is this about defending creationism? i'm afraid this is simply about scientists who think too highly of themselves:(. Ungtss 01:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As I said I was not refering to this articule in particular.--LexCorp 01:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
well then i'll thank you not to accuse me of carrying on "my confusion by terminology war" in this case, as you did above. Ungtss 01:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
fair point I have removed the personal attack. --LexCorp 02:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thanks, friend:). sorry this one got hot -- i look forward to working with you in the future:). Ungtss 02:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
no ploblem. --LexCorp 02:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polling

Marco, the reason the discussion of polling keeps being removed is because there is no reason for it to be there. The question isn't whether a good reason has been given to remove it (though it has) but whether a good reason was given to include it in the first place (there wasn't). I've searched the web and my library for definitions of "scientific consensus" and I've found quite a few but not one of them mentions polling. Why? Science isn't a popularity contest.--JonGwynne 20:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sentence that appears to offend JG:
In cases where there is still significant doubt among that scientific community, methods such as polling are sometimes used to ascertain the existing scientific consensus.
It isn't a popularity contest. My picture of what this is referring to is that when decisions must be made, policy makers demand an answer Now!, and for this polling in uncertain or in process science is required. It seems to also be a valid way to assist researchers in a large complex field get a handle on the current state of concensus to help researchers in various parts or subdisciplines focus on the issues and see what needs too be tested and where questionable areas exist. In each of these cases the polling is not to define the science, but rather to assist in decision making and guiding further research. Perhaps a backgtound in science would help you see the issues here. This is discussed (in part) in the body of the article, but maybe needs more clarification there. The above is my good reason for including it. Vsmith 03:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Policy makers"? That's a euphemism for "politician", is it not? Who cares what they "demand" from science? How is that even remotely relevant to this article (or to much of anything for that matter)? Polling measures opinion and nothing else. If you're picking the next Miss Universe, polling is fine. If you're deciding matters of facts, polling doesn't mean a thing. I have seen many different definitions and descriptions of "scientific consensus" and not one of them makes any reference to polling. Can you provide any that do?--JonGwynne 00:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so I have a background in science, and I can see where polling might be useful for summarizing the consensus for outsiders, but off the top of my head I can't think many cases of polling being used to ascertain a scientific consensus except for this survey. Can you name any examples? — Cortonin | Talk 06:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] polling

First of all, it confuses me Marco that you reverted my own edit by saying that you're reverting to me...

Because I basically reverted to your version, see [2] -- mkrohn 08:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second, I'm the one who initially added the polling sentence, but as I think about it, I'm having difficulty thinking of many cases where polling was actually accepted as a legitimate assessment of consensus. Polling is occasionally (but rarely) done, but it seems it is more often ignored than accepted. Since I originally put it there, I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea of it being there, but can you think of many specific examples of this? — Cortonin | Talk 03:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In addition, I think this sentence: In most scientific fields there is no specific mechanism, perceptible to those outside the field, to achieve consensus or to recognize it when it has been achieved. should be trashed. It amounts to "I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it," which is usually just a sign that something isn't well understood or well thought out, rather than a good definition for something. — Cortonin | Talk 03:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you can think of good examples, then add the polling sentence back, but don't revert back in the first sentence (and the one in the middle is just redundantly repeating itself). — Cortonin | Talk 03:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

O.k. I tend to agree that polling is not a significant tool for ascending scientific consensus and reworded the article to take this into account. -- mkrohn 08:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you agree that polling isn't a "significant tool" for establishing scientific consense, how about we reword the article so it isn't mentioned?--JonGwynne 00:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because we say that it is used rarely and because it might be interesting to the reader. At least I found it interesting. -- mkrohn 00:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It can be important that polling is used, and still called scientific consensus, precisely because it illustrates that consensus is not a flawless mechanism for identifying truth using a rigorous and idealistic scientific method (as one previous version of this article indicated), but instead, is a collective expert opinion, which just happens to be based on understanding gained through careful scientific study. — Cortonin | Talk 00:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There's no way to know whether or not responses to polls are based on "understanding gained through careful scientific study". Why should that be assumed?--JonGwynne 04:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The responses of scientists to a poll are not always based on understanding gained through careful scientific study, but the vast majority of the time, it is. The degree of understanding, and the degree of carefulness in the study, those vary greatly, but there's always at least the intention, and usually the reality, of basing the opinions on input from scientifically obtained understanding. I think it should go without saying that scientists are first and foremost humans. It should also go without saying that scientific understanding is not always truth. Science is a method, and the results obtained by this method are not always guaranteed to be true, they just tend to get closer to true over time. Sometimes we see the myth of the scientist as a science machine, which perhaps could be addressed somewhere, but this probably isn't the article for that particular topic. — Cortonin | Talk 21:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My point is that polls show nothing but opinion. You might be right in your assumption that this opinion is objective and based on dispassionate scientific study, but then again you might not be. There's no way to know for sure so let's not assume, let's just report the facts and leave it to the individual to sort things out. Polling is a way of determining a person's opinion and nothing more (or less). Right? --JonGwynne 03:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Somewhat denotatively, yes, although using ONLY the word opinion does not present the clearest impression due to multiple meanings of "opinion". Check this definition of opinion. Polling for scientific consensus should evaluate definition 2, and maybe even definition 3, of "opinion", but far less of this will be definition 1. The problem is that definition 1 comes first as the more prevalent usage of opinion, so using that word alone does not zoom in to the clearest meaning, and in fact, presents the much less common case of what is being assessed as being a so called "uninformed opinion", rather than an "educated opinion". If you want to get into an interesting conversation with a scientist about their work, try asking them what they think is true in their field, but that they can't prove. Sometimes when you poll you will get scientists that will report those things that they think are true and can't prove, and sometimes you will get them to only report the things they can prove. It varies by individual, and by the phrasing of the question. Calling it simply "opinion" would be too simplistic to capture this. — Cortonin | Talk 09:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
By contrast, check this definition of consensus. It has "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" and "agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole". This is what inspired me to describe it as a "collective judgment, position, and opinion of scientists." Using those words separately I think misses something, but combining them makes more clear what is going on. — Cortonin | Talk 09:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Cortonin, this one sentence sums it perfectly up. -- mkrohn 09:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Cortonin. It makes a big difference though, when you are trying to assess the opinion of scientists in their own speciality or in a more tangentially related area. Most people have strong opinions about their own field, so their opinion is likely to be related to their interpretation of information they are intimately associated with. This does not mean that they are unbiased, of course. As for polling itself - scientific societies do poll their membership - policy documents, research agendas, these kind of things are likely to reflect "consensus" based, at least in part on voting. Guettarda 21:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ah, good point. I forgot about society surveys. Often those are more about internal matters, like where to spend money and who should run the society, but they can sometimes reflect on more scientific matters, such as deciding what areas are worth focusing work on. — Cortonin | Talk 22:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


As of yet, there has been no evidence provided to show that polls conducted measure anything but opinion - no indication that they do anything different than any other poll... and yet certain people insist on reverting back to a version that make unsupported and undocumented assumptions about what happens during a poll. Either provide the evidence or stop reverting, those are your choices. Anything else is belligerent pushing of POV.--JonGwynne 18:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

If you poll a collection of scientists and ask them, "Do you think quantum mechanics is well supported, partly supported, weakly supported, or not at all supported by the evidence?" then you will get their judgment of this, position on this, and opinion about this. It's more than just opinion, because they can base their response on more than just opinion. Can you magically "distinguish" whether a scientist has based his or her response on some sort of judgment or weighing of the evidence? No, but since you're polling a large body, you are guaranteed to get people who have considered and weighed the evidence, and so your aggregate result will include more than just opinion. And in fact, it would be a mistake to imply that the scientific consensus does not include the collective opinions of scientists, because it certainly does, precisely because scientists are human and in humans it is known that opinion merges with judgment and assessment. So it's not valid to say that this is not the scientific consensus simply because some opinions are averaged in. That would just imply that someone is assuming an idealistic impression of scientific consensus or the scientific process which doesn't conform to reality. Science is no perfect art of truth, it's simply a method for progressively getting closer to it. — Cortonin | Talk 19:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a series of unwarranted assumptions on your part. Why do you assume that when asked for their opinion, scientists will give something other than their opinion? That's all a poll is, it questions a person's opinion. Now, if you want to argue that Scientific Consensus is merely the reflection of the opinion of a majority of scientists that that changes things, but I don't think too many people here would agree with that analysis of it. You say that in a sufficiently large poll, the results are "guaranteed" to be more than just opinion. How is that "guaranteed"? It is a fair question, don't you agree?--JonGwynne 21:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
A fair question with a simple answer. It's a statistical argument. If you ask 500 physicists the question I gave above, what do you think the odds are that all 500 of them gave you an uninformed opinion? The probability of that is slim to none. If only a single one of them gave an informed opinion, which is more appropriately called a judgment, or an assessment, then the average result will contain more than just opinion. Even if half of them give you an uninformed opinion (also statistically very unlikely, given the number of physicists I know), the average result will still contain a strong slant toward the collective consensus. In reality, the actual result will be that a handful of respondents will be uninformed but will perhaps think they are informed, and chunk of the respondents will be informed and make a somewhat educated assessment, and the remaining majority will be well informed on that particular topic and make a reasonably educated assessment. And all of them will exhibit some bias, for example, that most of them learned physics during a time period in which quantum mechanics is essentially accepted as unquestioned fact in physics. This is still informed, but biased, because they probably question it less than is optimal since it has become accepted orthodoxy. But this presence of some bias does not make it "just opinion". For it to be uninformed opinion, they must be uninformed in that area, or be using no information from their training to make the assessment, and statistically speaking, this is just not the case. — Cortonin | Talk 01:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what would happen if you asked 500 physicists the same question and, with all respect, neither do you (or, more to the point, neither does anyone else in the world). My point is that the results depend on a great many things - not the least of which are the questions asked and the nature of the subject. For a nice, abstract concept like quantum mechanics, it might not be a problem. But for an issue like global warming where, unfortunately, politics plays just as big a role as science (certainly with examples like WMC, Marco and VSmith who can't separate politics and their prejudices from science), the issue is much trickier. BTW, notice how the reference to confirmation bias keeps getting nuked even though it is central to any balanced discussion of scientific consensus. Anyway, my point is that it is necessary to discuss the role that opinion plays in this issue and those who want to believe that because a knot of like-minded individuals who share the views that their acolytes have been parroting back here (no named mentioned) means that "the discussion is over because the consensus is in". In the meantime, we're no closer to having any actual reference that says polling plays a sufficiently significant role in determining scientific consensus that it warrants mention in the introduction to an encylopedia article on the subject. You seem to be one of the more level-headed people here, maybe you can come up with something.--JonGwynne 02:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
As a humorous aside, I was searching for papers on scientific consensus, and stumbled across an article where someone was analyzing popular conceptions about scientific consensus and conducted "an analysis of 187 reviews published on Amazon.com".  :) It's amazing what gets published sometimes. But anyway, the simplest reference is this. Opinion IS part of consensus. So yeah, there are plenty of biased people out there, and their opinions are part of the consensus. There's a reason why my user page says what it does. — Cortonin | Talk 07:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
If opinion is part of consensus, then why doesn't the article say that. I don't know if I agree that "scientific consensus" is literally the consensus of scientists - or whether it is a "term of art" used by scientists and for them, "consensus" means something different (and in many way the opposite) of what it means to other people. This is something that should also be addressed by the article but every time I try, my changes are reverted by people with an axe to grind.--JonGwynne 14:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


And for the record, I would have probably objected to the removal of the confirmation bias reference from the page, except that it is linked to and discussed in greater detail lower down the page. You have to remember that, while scientific consensus is perhaps a hot issue right now in global warming, global warming is a very tiny subset of the body of scientific work, and for most of it, the process of forming and establishing consensus works quite well. Global warming is simply more contentious because its supporters believe there is danger if global action is not taken, and therefore, definitively defining the scientific consensus is being pushed as a much more important point than in other areas of science, where it is more acceptable to let the scientific consensus grow more carefully and gradually over time. It is actually the pressure for political action which puts the sense of urgency and conflict into the process of assessing the scientific consensus, and the accuracy levels which can be placed on that consensus. I would suggest adding a section on this, but it seems we already have one with the "Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making" section. — Cortonin | Talk 07:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I understand that global warming isn't in any way directly related to the issue of global warming. That's the main reason I was able to successfully appeal one of the attempts of the censorship squad to have me banned for a revert violation.  :-> Anyway, I like your idea of talking about the politicization of consensus by environmental extremists. Are you going to work something up from that and add it? I think you should. I know there is a detailed discussion of it in the body of the article, but it should also be mentioned in the intro, don't you think?--JonGwynne 14:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
p.s. I have read the talk Marco and your belligerent reverts to the side, you've still not bothered to justify them. Care to explain? I doubt it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't mean to come off as rude as you have been.--JonGwynne 21:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Consensus in science is usually achieved through an informal agreement as to what the best science is. When people publish they work within certain frameworks, seminal papers get cited, this then moves into monographs and then into textbooks. If there is disagreement, then people publish counterexamples and criticisms. Either people are convinced, or they start to dismiss that person's "obsession" with [whatever]. Polling (when it occurs) actually asks the question. As far as "opinions" go, the difference between polling and informal acceptance is (i) the question actually gets asked and people get to express what they think directly, and (ii) often a wider cross-section is asked than is actively publishing on the topic. Because this generally goes to people's careers and credibility, opinions expressed tend to be more than "just opinions"...if you want to be taken seriously you can't very well ignore the published data. So it is more than "just and opinions". Guettarda 21:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"In other cases methods such as polling can be used to determine the opinions of scientists on a given subject." was the version given by JonGwynne. The other version is: "In other cases methods such as polling are used to ascertain the scientific consensus."

Cortonin gave a detailed argument why "consensus" is a better term than "opinion". Furthermore, your (Jon) version talks about "opinions" (emphasize by me). Finding the opinions of scientists is a lot easier than reaching consensus. For instance in the example given by Cortonin the opinions of scientists is a set consisting of "supported", "partly supported", "weakly supported", "not at all supported", but this is not the consensus of the group.

In reality things can be far more complex and it is possible (or perhaps even likely) that the group consensus differs from every single opinion of the group. This means no one of the group agrees to 100% with the consensus and thus the consensus is not necessarily an element of the set of opinions. -- mkrohn 22:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. You might also want to read the article consensus.

All well and good but none of it answers the question (and I don't think Cortonin was saying what you claim he was saying). Here's the central question: Where is the reference that shows that polling plays a role in determining scientific consensus? You keep trying to tap-dance around the subject and divert attention from the lack of support for this claim but I'm perfectly happy to keep dragging you back to it if necessary. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, I can keep to the point when it suits me and I can keep you to the point whether it suits you or not. Your persistent reverts without any foundation to back them up simply reinforce the fact that you have nothing to back up your position and are reverting to the "because I said so, that's why!" school of argument. Wikipedia deserves better. Don't you agree?--JonGwynne 02:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... I think I see a scientific consensus developing here. By my observations there are five scientifically literate wikipedians who have reached a working consensus on the polling issue. I'd say we have a scientific consensus, or - maybe we should conduct a poll? Original research! - I can hear the charge now. :-) Vsmith 02:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
You think this is "scientific consensus"? I sure hope not. Maybe you were just being sarcastic. If not, I would respectfully suggest that you recuse yourself from further commentary on the subject or editing of the article. BTW, your thinly-veiled insult is a violation of wikipedia policy - but your violations of policy are neither new nor rare so I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise.  ;-> --JonGwynne 02:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Scientific opinion on climate change lists several surveys that help identifying scientific consensus. Quote: "The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change." -- mkrohn 18:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
No, actually, they don't. The only thing those surveys do is reinforce the prejudices of those who participated in them. You'll notice that the results of the various surveys turned out exactly as one would have expected given the people who were sponsoring them (what a coincidence... NOT!). The surveys done by right-wing groups showed that the majority believed human activity wasn't responsible for global warming and the leftist surveys all showed the opposite. No surprises there. This is why I am saying that polling is a bad way to determine scientific consensus. If you want to find out what someone's opinion is, a survey is a great thing. But opinion isn't science. Look at the controversy over Lomborg's book. He writes a book that shows statistically that some people's deeply-held beliefs are wrong and he gets viciously attacked for it. In spite of the fact that his book was stringently peer-reviewed, there are still people spreading lies about it not being reviewed. Instead of poking holes in Lomborg's scientific conclusions, they take personal shots at him. The only reasonably conclusion is that there are no significant problems with the science of the book and all his critics have left in their bag of arguments is ad hominem. Pretty sad if you ask me. But it makes my point. Opinion is a bad thing when it comes to science and people who confuse opinion with science are either misguided (if they do it accidentally) or actually evil (if they do in intentionally). --JonGwynne 02:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Opinion can be a fascinating and insightful part of science. See here, for example. It's policy that doesn't do so well when it rests on opinions. — Cortonin | Talk 02:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Of course the opinions of scientists can be interesting. But they're still opinions. The article in question is about "scientific consensus" and, as such, should be about facts rather than opinions. That's all I'm saying. There should be a clear and absolute differentiation between opinion, hypothesis and proven fact... wouldn't you agree?--JonGwynne 05:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Scientific consensus is not fact. It's a phenomenon which emerges from scientists (who are people), not a definitive representation of truth. — Cortonin | Talk 09:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I notice that there is *STILL* no evidence from any of the knee-jerk revert-artists that polls measure anything but the opinion of those who are polled.--JonGwynne 05:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Rewrites

I rewrote two sections. In both I tried to be as NPOV as possible and the emphasize that there's no easy answer here. The relationship between science and policy is not straightforward -- it is not a case of "scientists come up with theory, policy follows." Sometimes science is not consulted at all by policymakers. Sometimes it is consulted and things go horribly wrong. The question of "scientific consensus" becomes a rhetorical strategy as much as anything else. Etc. I tried to emphasize some of this and get away from the prescriptive approaches that existed before (there is an entire branch of science studies built up around science and policy, it is not an easy subject at all).

I used the global warming and creationist examples simply because they are the best known as easiest to understand. I tried to do so in a way which left the question of whether one is correctly representing scientific consensus or not open -- those are battles for other articles to duke out, not this one. It is worth using them though to point out the way in which "scientific consensus" becomes a contested item of worth.

On the change of scientific consensus over time, this is again a complicated question. I highlighted what I consider the three main theories of scientific change, which I find give a pretty good overview of the variety present in the different models. Basically, there are those who think that scientific change happens linearly, those than think it happens in horizontal shifts, and those who think there is no pattern or progress to it at all. Again, I wanted the article to indicate that this was an interesting and open question, not something with a simple little answer, because that's certainly not the state of knowledge in the philosophy, sociology, or history of science.

Let me know if I've been unclear or have failed in some way. Hopefully a fresh rewrite will clear out some of the old arguments. --Fastfission 03:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, now that the Climate wars have quieted down a bit following the Arbcom decision, I've taken a look at the rewrites. Firstly, the emphasis on two highly publicized controversies (climate & creationism) does a misservice to the article. Both of these are overblown and the creation arguement is bogus and non-science. The discussion needs to be more about the unhyped everyday use of scientific consensus as was the intent of the discussion before the rewrite.
Secondly: the discussion in the change over time section needs to be more about science and leave the philosophers somewhere else, they have little relevance in actual scientific, business and political decisions and workings involved with scientific consensus issues. We can pontificate about the philsophers elsewhere. My 2 cents for now :-) -Vsmith 15:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you object to talking about creationism/climate -- they are the two debates in which "consensus" is most commonly invoked, challenged, etc., so they are the most interesting and relevant to talk about in their use of it specifically. Scientific consensus is not invoked everyday -- it is just assumed and taken for granted, it is only invoked in debates. I'm not sure why you're opposed to discussing different models for changing consensus in an article about this -- they do have relevance; the model one subscribes to will drastically change what one thinks of "scientific consensus" (a Popperian will think it is closer to truth, a Kuhnian might be skeptical of it, a Feyerabendian will not give a wit). I think it is written fairly clearly, if you don't find it relevant, please explain why. --Fastfission 16:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed's question

I've always felt that consensus was a political term. You might disagree with a plan, but you're willing to go along with the others in the hopes that it can be made to work somehow.

As for a scientific question, how can it be put to rest until it is answered definitively? Planets either travel in circular orbits or ellipses. It's not up to the majority. Boyle's law can be independently verified by anyone with the skill and curiosity to check it.

It's ridiculous to take a poll of scientists. If less than 95% are sure of something, then it's not science: it's guesswork: it's a hypothesis which has not been confirmed yet.

Anyone can "veto" a hypothesis. It just takes one reputable researcher finding a single exception to the rule, to prove that the rule is not true.

Sorry, veto is the wrong word here; I thought you'd cut me some slack because I put it in scare quotes. I'm referring to the well-known example of asserting that "All sheep are white". It just takes one confirmed observation of a black sheep to disprove this hypothesis.

In practice, several independent researchers or teams of researchers will attempt to duplicate the results, and if enough of them fail to do so the whole matter is dropped. And the hypothesis is discarded as unverifiable.

If 67% of researchers in a field think a certain thing is so, this again is not science. We need everyone who looks into to say, "Yep, it's just as the journal article said. I've confirmed it." Uncle Ed 19:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, this is scientifically naive and bad editing. I see you're having a bout of editing the climate pages again. Sigh. It will all end in tears, but whose? It is simply not true, in practice, that Anyone can "veto" a hypothesis. It just takes one reputable researcher finding a single exception to the rule, to prove that the rule is not true.. This is a very Popperian view of science. But it doesn't work like that. If there is a huge body of opinion saying X, and one paper saying not-X, then people don't just say "oh well thats it then". They say: "interesting. I wonder if thats true. We'll test out this new not-X idea." And they do, and things evolve. The 67% stuff... its just wrong. William M. Connolley 20:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC).

I don't know why you deleted the opposing view by the 1st DOE secretary:

James Schlesinger wrote, "Science is not a matter of consensus, as the histories of Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Einstein and others will attest. Science depends not on speculation but on conclusions verified through experiment." [3]

Does anyone other than Dr. C. mind if I put it back in? Uncle Ed 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, Ed! I - and probably most of others - fully endorse your idea. --Lumidek 23:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed -- the thing that confuses me about the rewrites you've been doing is that you seem to be confusing the issue of "scientific consensus" and "ontological truth" (what is true in a "real" sense). The page as I originally wrote it (which seems to have been thoroughly edited by now) attempted to make clear that these two things are both quite problematic and that nobody is necessarily saying that one is the other. The Schlesinger quote would not "disagree" with such an assessment -- what Schlesinger is trying to say is that truth is not a matter of consensus, which is not the same thing as saying that such a thing like "scientific consensus" does not exist.

Two historical examples, using the Schlesinger quote: Copernicus may have been closer to the truth than the Ptolemaic system (Copernicus is not currently regarded as "true", by the way), but his ideas were not embraced by the scientific community and did not in any sense represent the "consensus" amongst practitioners of science until after Galileo's work (Between 1545 and 1700 there were about a dozen Copernicans total). Scientific consensus was simply wrong in this instance, for a variety of reasons (the Church as an external influence played a big role here).

On the other hand, if we look at Einstein, we see a different story. Scientific consensus very quickly switched over to support Einstein, to the extent that a number of individual scientists at the time resented it strongly, feeling that consensus had shifted without adequate evidence. However now we think that Einstein was right and they were wrong -- that Einstein was even closer to "truth" than could have been known at the time. In this instance, scientific consensus was "right".

The way I thought this topic ought to have been written was one which introduced scientific consensus as concept (something which may exist in one form or another, though gauging it is a tricky question), but tried to be as non-committal as possible to its relationship to either truth or public policy. I feel that this would be a NPOV approach to the question -- wouldn't you? --Fastfission 23:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


[Edit conflict] It's a bit too simplistic. The suggestion that a single experiment, or a single series of experiments, can "set things straight" is not the reality in many sciences life earth sciences, life science, astronomy, etc. There are small number problems, where you can actually measure things, like the earth's passage around the sun. There are large number problems where you can safely average things, particles in solution, where you have 6x10^23 particles per mole. But then there are all the other areas, where you don't have enough to generalise but you have far too many to count. So you operate by consensus on what seems to be the best explanation for the observed data. Sometimes you get very simple, phenomenological "laws"; in other cases you have simple elegant explanations which everyone knows are wrong, but which do the job of explaining observations better than any existing data.
The species-area relationship in ecology is sometimes called the one general "law" in ecology. In bigger areas, you have more species. Why? No one knows for certain, but "area" per se is almost certainly not the driver of species richness. A large number of mechanistic hypotheses have been proposed, and many of them have been experimentally supported. Conflicting hypotheses have been supported. So what's going on? It's possible that more than one explanation is true. It's up to the experts in the field to determine for themselves which experiments they trust more. While the single outlier might be seen by some as "proof" that the established models are wrong and should be discarded, more likely it was because one of the hundreds of factors which play a part in real systems was improperly measured in this study, or that there was unobserved confounding in the experiment, or...
Your job as an expert is to look at the various conflicting experiments and weigh them. The weight of evidence supports y, but there are these studies which suggest that y is not the case. So what do you do? You look at the studies, and you assess their credibility. Could the data have been misinterpreted? Could there be unexplained or unrecognised confounding? Did the scientists make a mistake? Scientists consider these anomalies individually. People try to replicate them because the pay-off for being part of "the next big thing" are big enough to be worth the risk. Science is rarely determined through single experiments, but rather through consensus. The consensus is not one of votes, but of common conclusions - most people will come to the same conclusion looking at the same results. Some people will not interpret the data in the same way - so there are disagreements. Consensus is not determined, in effect, through popular acclaim. But the maverick is often rewarded - there are risks associated with working at the fringe, but the payoffs are high if you are right. Guettarda 00:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Schlesinger's quote is a valid subject for inclusion in the article. As he well knew, scientists in the public eye serve two masters. The search for truth and the job of providing guidence to policy makers - your politicians. The truthsearch is not controversial. Serving the other master can be quite controversial. The state of any science is inherenty uncertain (it's the name of the game), but policy makers demand to know now what the science says to guide decision making. Thus the scientists working for them must provide a best answer which is often based on the current scientific consensus and some judgement on its reliability. Scientists not working for the policy makers would seldom need the term scientific consensus - it is rather alien to them.
The current article rather badly blurs this distinction and confuses scientific consensus with paradigm shiftings and the rather normal human resistance to really new ideas until they are strongly supported.
The two strands need to be better defined and separated in the article.
Vsmith 00:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, your answer seemed to make sense, but it's too long: I couldn't even skim it. Can you summarize it a bit, please? Uncle Ed 15:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a try. It may take a day or two though. Guettarda 17:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] scientific consensus inside Wikipedia

It was claimed that omitting this highly interesting and even essential point is "minor" and that there "should be no self reference". In that case obviously he/she may delete the article Wikipedia as well!

Anyway, I would instead also agree with a similar remark linking from this article to "Wikipedia", and with such a remark included at the proper place in the Wikipedia article with a link from from there to here. What do you prefer? Harald88 18:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I too have removed your text:
This is also relevant for Wikipedia itself: it may be expected that minority POV's will be regularly suppressed in articles, even without valid evidence against them.
First, self-reference is to be avoided if possible. Second, I disagree with the point: minority POV is over-represented in most of wiki, and not suppressed enough. Thirdly, this has nothing to do with *scientific consensus*. Your point is about minority viewpoints; there is nothing that ties that to *science*. William M. Connolley 19:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] non-vandalism of this page

I would like to discourage everyone who is not a professional scientist from making counterproductive edits of this page. Several people have tried to remove the crucial sentence from the first, defining paragraph - namely that the scientific consensus is not a part of the scientific method. Please, don't do it again. Lubos Motl, Harvard U. --Lumidek 02:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There was no vandalism, that was simply deceptive.
I would like to encourage everyone to edit this page as that is what Wikipedia is all about. Of course it helps to know a bit about the subject and it is important to back up your edits with sources. But, you don't have to be from Harvard or have a science degree from anywhere.edu, just - to emphasize - have verifiable references to base your edits on. Cheers! Vsmith 03:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Harvard-based or non-Harvard based, pov-pushers who operate through threats and personal attacks have no credibility as far as I am concerned. Guettarda 03:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Gosh Lubos, does this mean youve going to leave the climate pages to climatologists? No, thought not... I would like to discourage everyone who is not a professional scientist from making counterproductive edits of this page is funny. Does that mean that you encourage professional scientists *to* make counterproductive edits? *I* encourage *everyone* not to make counterproductive edits. I encourage Lubos not to throw his weight around and to recognise him limitations: I value his opinions on subjects like gravity; sadly his POV-pushing on climate change is all too obvious.
Meanwhile, I've had my own hack at the intro following FF's go. And I removed the bit about polling: I don't think this is often/ever used (at least within GW). William M. Connolley 11:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Search for a simpler example

Cut from article:

For example, in physics there exists scientific consensus on general relativity and quantum mechanics. Special relativity and quantum mechanics are unified in the framework of quantum field theory (QFT). There exists scientific consensus that QFT is a very useful description, but it is not a final theory. For example, it does not include gravity. General relativity and quantum mechanics may be unified by superstring theory but there is no consensus whether this candidate unifying theory is the correct description of reality.

I took 2 years of physics, and I don't even claim to understand any of this other than maybe gravity. Can't we pick an example that someone with a high-school or undergraduate education could understand? There must be something which is (1) well-known and (2) understood by many non-scientists.

How about Pasteur's germ theory of disease? You can see germs in a microscope, and everyone knows someone who's taken pills or gotten shots to "get better" with medicine that kills germs. --Uncle Ed 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rv: why

I'm afraid I reverted Eds changes. I wouldn't say they were all bad, but some seemed to skew the page towards his POV: an obvious example is dropping climate change from E & ClCh as examples of little sci cont; or adding in the assertion that "Many theories relating to health and the environment lack consensus". Perhaps we can work towards a compromise. William M. Connolley 10:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't be afraid. You're an admin now (and I'm not). You'll get away with it. :-)
But I think we need more emphasis on challenges to scientific consensus. The 19th century has examples of people who challenged the prevailing scientific views on transmisson of disease (e.g., Ignaz Semmelweis) but were proven right decades later. And Feynmann worked practically single-handedly against the commission investigating the Challenger disaster and got the right answer (in modern times).
The assumption that "it's the consensus, it must be right" is decidedly anti-scientific. The only thing that matters in science is reproducibility of results. Heh, we don't even have an article on that, do we, Doc? Puh-leaze tell me I'm wrong. --Uncle Ed 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well then, you're arguing that its better to use examples from the past where we know what the right answer turned out to be. Which again makes GW a bad example. No-one is arguing its the consensus, it must be right. Its a septic strawman. Though I have seen people argue "its the consensus, it must be wrong" (Crichton). Reproducibility of results? No problem. What do you see as non-reproducible? William M. Connolley 19:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus and majority

Cut from intro:

The scientific consensus is determined by assessing the of those scientists.

Who says so? And how do they define "significant majority agreement"

If 75% of scientists believe the earth revolves around the sun, does that mean there is a consensus on the matter? How about 85%? or 95%? --Uncle Ed 14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to prove that I don't automatically disagree with Ed, I agree with him here. In many disciplines, there is no clear meachanism for recognising consensus, generally because it isn't necessary. William M. Connolley 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have four grains of sand. Is it a pile? How about if I add another grain of sand? Another? Another? Consensus is not an all-or-nothing affair. Some loon-balls believe that there was no Holocaust. Would it matter if that number of loon-balls doubled? Tripled? Halved? The fact remains that people familiar with the evidence and trained in judging that evidence competently agree overwhelmingly that there was a Holocaust. Many of those who disagree just happen to be rabid anti-Semites who collect Nazi memorobilia and can recite chapter and verse from Mein Kampf. Similar remarks apply to the theory of evolution (opponents often belong to the John-Templeton-Foundation-Funded Discovery Institute), and human-caused global warming (opponents often belong to industry-funded front groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute). In cases where there are two or more "warring" camps, scientists attempt to test a variety of hypotheses until one emerges as the "winner". This "how many grains of sand make a pile?" mentality is fallacious and distracting.
JUST TO CLARIFY: I am not dropping the Hitler-bomb on either Intelligent Design fans OR the anti-anthropogenic global warming camp. My point is simply that, just as Holocaust denialists often have a personal and ideological stake in their beliefs (rather than, say, a different and equally sensible way of interpreting WWII documents or film clips), so people in these two camps have a personal, financial stake (arguably) in the beliefs which they hold. I don't mean to suggest that either (1) all people in both camps believe as they do purely for personal, financial reasons, or that (2) all people in both camps are stupid, ignorant, crazy, or immoral. My point is ONLY that many of the leaders in both camps SURE DO SEEM to have a vested interest in believing as they do--an interest which has nothing to do with observation, experiment, and the interpretation of data. This "seeming," of course, is not ironclad proof. Dicksonlaprade 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Under "Uncertainty and Scientific Consensus," a link needs to be added to Lindzen's piece. A link also needs to be added to Oreskes' response in the LA Times [4]. I intend to make these changes, and the one which follows, on or about August 12. Also, the first sentence in the second para. of this section is a non-starter: ". . .there are those involved in the debate over global warming who take the stand that 'scientific consensus' supports the idea that human activity is drastically altering the environment in a potentially disastrous way. . . ." This wording does no justice to the fact that there IS a scientific consensus, and that anthropogenic GW people are on the side of that consensus.[5] Anyone who would argue otherwise is welcome to provide references to at least three articles PUBLISHED IN PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE JOURNALS which take issue with anthropogenic GW. Since the anthropogenic GW-ers already have the IPCC reports and Oreskes' piece,[6] I believe that the burden of proof is now on the other camp to demonstrate the absence of scientific consensus.
Lotsa luck.Dicksonlaprade 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Completed changes to "Uncertainty" section. Did not include link to Oreskes' refutation of Lindzen's piece since it was not germaine to the paragraph's main point. 129.15.127.254 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC). Sorry, this was me, dicksonlaprade, who just made the changes to "uncertainty" Dicksonlaprade 17:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

If you revert my entire contribution, please retain the {{TotallyDisputed}} tag. We need to talk. Thank you. --Uncle Ed 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you seem to be the only one who has a problem with this article. You also seem to be the only one who rejects the notion that there could be such a thing as scientific consensus or that it has any existance or usage outside of the emissions issue. You have not a single source to back up this assertion, from what I can see, and do not seem to be aware that the issue of scientific consensus is used in all sorts of places, including but not limited to regulatory debates in the United States. You also make a lot of bald assertions as to what is "usually" the case, again without a source to be seen. You also assert that consensus is not important to the philosophy of science; this is nonsense, as the question of how scientific communities change their consensus opinions on issues is one of the most common areas of discussion in the philosophy and sociology of science. And so on with your changes.
I want to assume good faith here Ed. But every change you've made seems to be with one goal in mind: you don't like it when people claim that there is consensus about global warming amongst scientists. You've decided to take the approach that the best method to diffuse this here is not to claim that there isn't consensus, but rather to try and attack the notion of consensus itself.
This is not the way to try and build a neutral article, and you know that. The article in its current state is not an uncritical celebration of consensus. It contains numerous statements to the effect that the truth-status of consensus is not clear, that consensus is often invoked for political reasons in policy disputes, and that consensus is not easy to establish in any case. I am not sure how you think that your version is more neutral on the whole.
If you want to add additional points relating to any of the examples, or think that any individual paragraph or sentence needs modification, feel free to point them out. But don't try to sabotage the article, don't allow yourself to become an uncritical POV-pusher. It doesn't help anything or anybody, and it is unnecessarily petty. --Fastfission 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your constructive criticism and will reflect upon it. Thank you. :-) --Uncle Ed 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Within the field'

An editor on Talk:Parapsychology has expressed the view that articles on parapsychology must necessarily be focused on the views of those 'within the field', and skeptical views sidelined. See his essay here for more details. I do not agree with this, it just seems like bending the much stronger Wikipedia:Neutral point of view rules.--Nydas(Talk) 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fallacy?

Appeals to popularity in the context of scientific debate are fallacious. If anyone doubts this, please discuss. As an example, imagine a mathematical "proof" that used "scientific consensus" as its evidence. 70.130.219.151 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Appealling to popularity as a means of deciding scientific truth is incorrect. However Nevertheless, claims of consensus in the context of scientific debate are fallacious is not true. If I am debating - for example - global warming and I say "oh, and by the way there is a sci cons on this" then that claim is not automatically falacious, as your edit implies. The page already makes the point that I think you are trying to make Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; William M. Connolley 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me ask this very clearly: Are you saying that an appeal to popularity in a debate is not an argumentative fallacy? 70.130.219.151 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry i believe you are referring to the wrong logical fallacy - if its anything then its an Appeal to Authority - and as the specific caveats are explained on the page - in this particular case it is not a fallacy. --Kim D. Petersen 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
An appeal that claims that a hypothesis is popular, and that this popularity is evidence of its truth, is an appeal to popularity, or the bandwagon fallacy. It is misleading and harmful in healthy debate, particularly in science. 70.130.243.126 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Strictly speaking it is a logical fallacy, not an argumentative fallacy. An argument rarely works according to strict proof. Instead, beliefs are updated given observation (which may include other people's expressed belief). Your beliefs should change given the opinion of experts, so it is reasonable to use them in an argument. I would be more than happy to show you the Bayesian model of beliefs and how this updating takes place. With specific regard to editing, you have added the same material three times. I am happy to discuss it here, but be aware of the three revert rule and I ask you not violate it. --TeaDrinker 00:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a mathematician, so "belief" is not a big priority for me when it comes to science. Instead, I prefer evidence and (ideally) proof over opinion - which is why appeals to authority are indeed fallacious. The point is that any individual can be wrong in their belief. Groups are made up of individuals, and so any group can be wrong in their belief. Therefore, that there is a group, even complete unanimity, that believes in some thing, that thing is not necessarily true. 70.130.243.126 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I don't usually describe myself as a mathematician, I do have a degree in math so quantitative thinking is not outside my realm either. Suppose X is a specific belief (that is a statement about the world). One popular model for beliefs is probability, so P(X) is your belief that the statement is true. So you are interested in the probability of X given an expert opinion E. Using Bayes rule for this,
  • Pr(X|E) = \frac{Pr(E|X)Pr(X)}{Pr(E|X)Pr(X)+Pr(E|\tilde{X})Pr(\tilde{X})}
The probabilities Pr(X) and Pr(E|X) are your prior belief in X and the probability of getting the expert opinion given that X is true. So under this model of belief, provided you do believe the evidence and the expert opinion are correlated at all, and you are not a priori certain of X (or not X), you would rationally update your beliefs in some way given expert opinion, so they can be used in an argument.
There are, of course, drawbacks to this model. First, there is some reasonable question whether beliefs are well modeled by probability statements. There is an assumption made that expert opinion is not independent of the true state of X. There are even more complex points about the universalizability of this arguement. These are all valid points, and I could even discuss further (and they have been discussed in the philosophical and statistical literature). However it is worth noting, in the mean time, that the case is not as clear cut as your edit, or your statements above seem to imply. Thus I don't think it makes a good addition to the article. --TeaDrinker 01:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're comparing apples to oranges - but, at least you got it off your chest. That can be a good thing. Back on topic: imagine a mathematical proof that simply noted that all experiments suggest this thing, and most experts agree with the conjecture, therefore it's a theorem. 70.130.230.114 02:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you fully understand. My point is it is quite reasonable for expert opion to sway belief, thus your claim that a claim of consensus is an invalid argument is not a priori obvious as you claim. Perhaps we are talking past eachother. Can you rephrase your idea or point? --TeaDrinker 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, one more attempt. In a debate, if someone says, "expert A says it's true, so it must be true", then it is easy to find a counter-example where an expert was wrong, showing that an expert opinion is not conclusive. Based on this logic, and based on the fact that any group of experts is made up of a collection of individual experts, then since any individual can be wrong, it is easy to see that any group can be wrong. This is logic. This is why any claim that an expert, a group of experts, or even all experts believe some thing - that does not prove anything in an of itself. This is why it is a fallacy - indeed, a well-known fallacy.
I am well aware that opinion, expert or otherwise, can sway belief. I'm not talking about belief. I'm talking about truth. 70.130.136.248 05:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The nature of evidence is that it makes views about the world more or less likely; A theory about the world, at least interesting ones, are underdetermined by observation. If I can not convince you that science does not establish facts by logical proof, have I at least convinced you failing to use a strict logical proof in a scientific discussion is at not a priori invalid and may be considered reasonable to many people? --TeaDrinker 06:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about "strict logical proof", I'm talking about fallacy used in debate. Lawyers and philosophers study these things, not just logicians. Using this type of appeal is equivalent to using other fallacies. Appeals to consensus are misleading and have not merit in debate. 70.130.209.78 16:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

70.130.136.248 already said what's the point here: Therefore, that there is a group, even complete unanimity, that believes in some thing, that thing is not necessarily true. This is why appeal to consensus is a logical fallacy in any debate. I dont understand why this is discussed any further. --Childhood's End 13:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the disconnect is that strict logical fallacies can still establish beliefs (in fact, you may note that no evidence provides unequivocal support--that is logical proof--of any interesting theory). Thus it is not "a[n] argumentative fallacy to use consensus in the context of a scientific debate"--it may in fact be very rational. --TeaDrinker 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe to move this discussion forward, how about the wording "Although scientific consensus does not independently establish truth, it may be an indicator of what a person familiar with the evidence would conclude." Does that adequately capture what you're trying to say? --TeaDrinker 15:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Some people believe that consensus ends the debate. This is ridiculous. It is important to point out that belief and truth are often contradictory. That's the point. In the context of debate over scientific hypotheses, claims of consensus are fallacious. I can't say it any more clearly. 70.130.209.78 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not feel comfortable with the wording you just proposed. I'll think about something, unless someone has another idea.
I understand your point, which seems to be that provided there is actually a scientific consensus, that is the best way we have to estimate what is knowledge and what is not. But we also know that scientific consensuses have a questionnable history (heliocentrism, phlogiston theory, ...). Appeals to consensus are not a logical fallacy per se when they are called upon to indicate the state of our actual knowledge, but they are when they are called upon to "prove" something or used to eradicate doubt about a theory.
The other problem that remains (but that's only my opinion) is that a scientific consensus cannot be verified nor proven. It can only be presumed. So appealing to a scientific consensus is like using an unproven fact to prove something... --Childhood's End 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we're all circling around the same idea. No evidence in science, even experimental or observational, could establish a theory beyond all doubt (although sometimes beyond reasonable doubt), in such a way that it would end scientific debate, particularly with regard to the incorporation of new evidence. That of course includes a scientific consensus, but it does not follow that a scientific consensus is not useful to note or is not compelling. I am certainly not tied to my wording and look forward to your ideas. --TeaDrinker 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How about this, "Since consensus does not establish the truth of a scientific hypothesis, it could be considered fallacious to make a consensus claim in a scientific debate." 70.130.209.78 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I am worried that the "it could be considered fallacious..." is too strong and broad. It seems to imply that people generally consider a scientific consensus to be meritless in discussion, when I think the opposite is the case for most readers on science. A expert consensus can give an indication of what a person would probably conclude if they evaluated all the evidence, and is particualrly useful when that person can not, for reasons of time or training, actually evaluate the evidence themselves. This last part is particularly true in science, where relevant training is usually extensive and time investment is enormous. In a more prosaic case, however, suppose your car had a fault. For reasons of extravagence and conspicious consumption, you take it to 100 mechanics, all of whom tell you the same thing is wrong, say a clogged fuel injector. While this is certainly not proof positive that the fuel injector is in fact clogged (maybe they are all trying to scam you!), I am well inclined to believe that is the case, especially if I can't evaluate the evidence for myself very well. The phrasing you propose would seem to imply (up to your use of "could be") that this kind of reasoning is invalid in all circumstances, when it is probably for most people quite reasonable. --TeaDrinker 07:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
How about adding "when such a claim is used as proof or to silence opposing theories" ? --Childhood's End 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. 70.130.187.163 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
As you say, "this is certainly not proof positive", and that's the point. A fallacy is simply an unsound or misleading argument. If you argue that consensus is indicative of truth, which happens in political debates about science, that is unsound and misleading. Consensus does NOT establish truth. Any argument that suggests otherwise is fallacious, by definition. 70.130.187.163 15:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but the article should not make it sound like anything but certitude is a bad argument since virtually all arguments (in science, court, etc.) fall well short of that mark. --TeaDrinker 21:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the best wording would contrast this type of fallacy with arguments that actually use the scientific method. You see, consensus arguments are not part of the scientific method. 70.130.182.67 14:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(Returning left, reply to 70.130.182.67) If so, we sould not want to repeat the information that is already in the second sentence of the article. We could go into more depth with regard to the ontological status of expert opinions (there is a literature in philosophy on exactly that question), but I think that would be excessive for the opening paragraph. Perhaps we should focus on improving the philosophy section instead. --TeaDrinker 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement in intro about GW and Evolution

I thought the following statement in the intro could be discussed a bit:

"Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which are not controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[1][2] or climate change[3][4]."

1- Is this statement political by itself?
2- Is this statement really necessary?

If "yes" to 1 or "no" to 2, perhaps this article could be better (and more NPOV) without the statement. It seems to me, at least, that it can be fairly said that the scientific consensus is stronger about gravity than about GW. Thus, perhaps we should avoid taking a position in an article describing what is "scientific consensus" about a politically-heated debate that exists because of the existence of some scientific dissent, as weak as it can be considered to be. One reason why gravity is not debated in the public is that reasonable scientific doubt does not even exists... --Childhood's End 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the entries.--Nydas(Talk) 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Conversely, I disagree and have restored them. Perhaps there is no great need to be hasty about this. In answer to CE, the statement is a useful illustration. Furthermore, gravity is not an useful illustration at this point because there is neither public nor scientific controversy William M. Connolley 18:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The political statement that is made is implying that there exists no scientific controversy about GW. Yet, the public controversy exists for a reason, even though there is arguably a strong majority view on the issue. Gravity, on the other hand, is an unquestionable example. --Childhood's End 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The public controversy exists for political reasons. There is some dissent, which is OK because consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Measured by the literature, the dissent is negligible William M. Connolley 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont see how a public controversy about a scientific issue can exist without a minimal scientific grip to support dissent. Or do you assume that if there would exist a minimal scientific doubt about other scientific consensuses that there would not necessarily be a public controversy about it?
Besides, let's not forget that the level of certainty about most GW findings is 90%, and that even this level of certainty is subject to some uncertainty. By itself, this should tell us not to use GW as an example of a scientific field free of scientific controversy such as physics are when it comes to gravity. --Childhood's End 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public debate vs scientific debate : Original research?

The intro contains the following statement :

"Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which are not controversial within the scientific community"

This statement is then supported by giving the examples of climate change and evolution.

This seems to me a case of WP:SYNT and mostly looks like a clumsy way to introduce the idea that there is a scientific consensus on climate change and evolution.

Two editors reverted the "dubious" tag that I added to the statement and the deletion of the two examples (per talk thread above). I am thus bringing this other issue to the talk page. --Childhood's End 13:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

Although there is considerable political advocacy for the claim that there is no scientific controversy over global warming, nonetheless several prominent scientists have a contrary or contradictory view about several aspects of the idea.

Richard Lindzen of MIT, for one. --Uncle Ed 00:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the pov tag and cn. The consensus is real and the word doesn't mean 100% agreement on all details. Scientific conferences and peer reviewed publications are part of a public discussion of scientific findings, not just reporting the findings. Therefor a citation is hardly needed for such an obvious statement. But then, some seem to have a lack of understanding of how science works. Vsmith 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I must disagree. It seems to me that you should provide a source to support this alleged way of how it is possible to establish a "scientific consensus", provided such a thing exists of course. --Childhood's End 02:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
According to this very article, "scientific consensus" implies lack of substantial scientifically based doubt by experts in the field. (There can still be a scientific consensus in support of a theory even when substantial numbers of people oppose it for other easons, such as for evolution.) There is no way that anthropogenic global warming alarmism qualifies, as hundreds of prominent scientists, many experts in the field, dispute it. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
Vegasprof (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology...Evolution is a "Law", not a "Theory"

Should evolution be publicly described as a "Scientific Law" or a "Scientific Theory"? I think that both are accurate, but "Scientific Law" would be understood by the general population as a way of communicating what is actually meant by the level of confidence that the current scientific understanding of Evolution is. This is based on an article I read in wired magazine. The link is as follows: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson -Alex.rosenheim 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where does the term "Scientific consensus" come from?

I mean, how old is it and was it used first by scientists or...? --Tobias Schmidbauer 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, who coined this term? --77.176.104.151 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And WHAT is scientific consensus?

I tell you: it's PERSONAL ideas of certain people. The fact that those people usually (not always as they MUST) have a scientific approach WON'T donate them more credibility with regard to their PERSONAL ideas. Either you prove them or they have NOTHING SCIENTIFIC. But it's nice to chat about nothing, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.38.68 (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edit for discussion (more on Popper's concepts)

First, congratulations to the collaborating editors, the article is evolving very good. I did a small contribution on the references format to use Wiki std, I will do the rest later on. Second, I wanto to suggest that more referencing from reliable sources is requered in order to keep WP:NPOV and to avoid WP:OR. Really the definition of "consensus" will have more weight if properly referenced, and the following sentence clearly looks OR: "Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, and peer review." Where does that come from? That's why I requested a citation. In general, the quality of the article can improve if more citation are provided.

Now my proposed edit, which I want the regular editors collaborating here to comment about. The section "How consensus can change over time" is really good, the summary of Popper's and Kuhn's ideas is quite to the point. However, because Popper's concept of falsifiability might not be so easy to understand to the general public, and, considering that more weight was given to Kuhn's ideas, I proposed to add at the end of the paragraph on Popper ideas, a citation, taken from "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", Part II, section 11 on Methodological Rules as Conventions (pp. 32 in the 2007 edition), which in simpler terms applies quite well to "consensus" in the sense that has been used lately, but that makes crystal clear, as the leading paragraph already says, that "Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method". The proposed edit is the following:

  • When considering methodological rules, Popper said that "... the game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game." As a second example of methodological rules he added: "Once a hypothesis has been proposed and tested, and has proved its mettle, it may not be allowed to drop out without 'good reason'. A 'good reason' may be, for instance: replacement of the hypothesis by another which is better testable; or the falsification of one of the consequences of the hypothesis."

I do prefer a transcription because I think the ideas as written by Pope are very clear to anyone. Mariordo (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy section is nonsense

The intro to this article is really good, but then it immediately drops into complete nonsense and obvious original research with the very next section. I've studied a lot of philosophy of science, and have never read anything like the ideas presented in the Philosophy section of this article. Consensus as the goal of science? Maybe my education is lacking, in which case please somebody provide some references for these statements. Otherwise, I'm going to rewrite the whole section sometime next week. --Sapphic (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the information seems to have come from this reference:

Yogesh Malhotra, Role Of Science In Knowledge Creation: A Philosophy Of Science Perspective. 1994.

That, in turn, seems to be based mostly on the work of John Ziman. I think somebody like Thomas Kuhn would be a more appropriate (and relevant) reference, and will try to incorporate his views into the section, as well as removing the remaining original research. --Sapphic (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Kuhn will be a much better source. Little by little the OR remaining in the article must be removed.Mariordo (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)