Talk:Scientific consensus/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Michael Crichton quote

Science fiction author and film producer Michael Crichton maintains that the concept of scientific consensus is susceptible to abuse:

I have to admit, references to Michael Crichton as a reliable source of information on problems with scientific philosophy strike me as highly dubious at best, breathtaking ignorance at worst. The article seems to focus on criticisms of scienfitic consensus for the purposes of attacking climate change scientific consensus rather than making any sort of attempt to describe what scientific consensus actually is and what it means. Quotes from more reputable sources, such as from the field of scientific philosophy, shold be used. --Axon 16:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Agreed. AFAIK, Ed Poor was looking for a quote and... err, wasn't too careful about where he got it from. Why not re-write the whole thing?

I'd love to but I just don't know enough about the subject matter. Marked as a stub for future expansion and I'll try to expand the article when I get time. In the meantime feel free to edit it --Axon 16:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)) OK. Emboldened by this, I shall remove MC.

Probably for the best: quotations from Crichton don't really help the anti-climate change lobby anymore than they damage the pro- lobby. I forsee a lot of problems with this page. A quick google for "scienfitic consensus" reveals many anti-climate control pages criticising The Consensus. --Axon 17:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is the "consensus"?

Here are my thoughts on the definition of scientific consensus:

Scientific consensus is agreement among scientists that a given hypothesis or theory is true.

Surely SC is more than this. A better (though by no means final) definition:

Scientific consensus is the agreement within a scientific field that a set of hypotheses are correct, reached through a process of experimentation through the application of scientific method and peer review.

I'm not sure about the "a set of hypotheses are correct" part: the consensus is the collection of hypothesis that are deemed likeliest to be correct, i.e. fit the evidence best.

This article attempts to describe the reluctance to accept new ideas by the consensus as a negative thing, ignoring the fact that science is all about resistance to ideas. Skepticism to new ideas until they are proved "true" is, perhaps, the defining quality of Science. Other philosophies (such as theism) may dispute this methodology. This is seperate to the criticism levied here which implies that this reluctance to accept new ideas is a form of prejudice on the part of the scientific community.

In fact, one wonders if the other articles on the scientific method aren't sufficient: surely the consensus is only those hypothesis that have passed review and independent experimentation rather than the monolithic belief system the article seems to suggest it is. Most scientists don't "believe" in "The Consensus": they merely hold that the consensus is the likeliest explanation given the evidence in their own specific fields.

When people refer to the "consensus" do they actually mean the scientific method and the scientific community which, together, could form what is commonly thought to be the "consensus"? Things get complicated here because the hypothesis exist independantly to the scienfitic community. I think the problem here is that critics tend to lump scientists into a single group under the term "scienfitic community" so as to better create accusations of eliteness and detachment from "reality". --Axon 17:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The [http://www.kmbook.com/science.htm Role Of Science In Knowledge Creation: A Philosophy Of Science Perspective] seems to contain a lot of useful information. The article Empirical method also seems linked to our topic here. --Axon 12:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Precautionary Principal

What does the precautionary principal have to do with scientific consensus? Does this have some significance that I'm missing? --Axon 18:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's an idea amoung environmentalists that if something MIGHT be dangerous, they shouldn't wait for scientific consensus to develop about whether it really is dangerous, but immediately go ahead and ban it. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 18:36, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Earlier versions were more clear about the PP.
I think the link between SC and the PP isn't quite as explicit: actually the PP states that when the threat of catastrophy is so great, such as with catastrophic climate change, action should be taken to avoid disaster before before scientific evidence exists that an actual threat is imminent (ahem, just like the pre-emptive war tactic adopted by neo-conservatives, but nevermind). As such, the PP is linked to a variety of topics but more closely links with environmentalism (who are or were it's chief proponents). Certainly I think the argument for including a link to it in the opening paragraph of this article is weak. Also, SC is linked to a variety of other subjects which have not been linked to in the "See Also" section.
In my time (long ago) at Everything2.com there was a tactic called "soft linking". When a user clicks through from one page to another it creates a soft link. These soft links are displayed in order of popularity at the bottom of the page. It was a common tactic to affect the bias of pages by soft linking to provactive pages to explicitly delcare bias (sort of like Google bombing). If I were a cynical I'd say a similar tactic was being employed here. --Axon 10:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forming consensus

The Scientific consensus and Paradigm shift articles are related. Perhaps we could agree on how to explain the process whereby scientific consensus on an issue forms. Then in a related section or article, we could discuss how a theory is attacked or defended and (if it wasn't totally correct) is ultimately amended. Thomas Kuhn wrote about this. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 20:13, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that both articles should complement each other. I would, however, argue that the paradigm shift article seems to cover this material. Examples of shifts in paradigm (oh how I hate that awful word) more properly belong there. --Axon 10:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert

User:FactionofReds has made a unilateral deletion of a significant amount of the text in this page, including the categories. This edit should either be rolled back or the original text restored.

My version

(William M. Connolley 22:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I've had a go at producing a version I'm happy with. Maybe others will be too. I went back a few versions and including some changes, and then had a major hack. So if I've cut your favourite bit out, my apologies.

I have deliberately tried to de-emphasise global warming. If the article is to be credible, it should really about SC *not* a rehash of the GW wars. Google, BTW, gives 56,800 hits for SC-GW, and 86,000 for just SC. Many (most? all?) of the SC+GW hits are from the skeptics with the there-is-no-sci-cons-on-gw.

Yes, this issue is an edit war waiting to happen. Best to step carefully.
Just read the article entitled Scientific consensus on global warming, which starts with the rather dubious line "Scientific consensus on global warming has been claimed by environmentalists, socialists". This article also needs considerable work and I have marked is as a stub accordingly.
We have a decision here: do we merge the content from "Scientific consensus on global warming" into some sort of "climate change controversy" section here or do we split our efforts on two articles and move all the climate change content into "Scientific consensus on global warming"? --Axon 10:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Axon, I created the Scientific consensus on global warming article a day or two ago. I started it by googling some quotations and pasting them in. I think it's a key part of the Global warming controversy article, but I've often found that it's easier to add new content on a controversial topic by creating a "sidebare" article first.
After the dust settles, and contributors agree that the sidebare is accurate and unbiased, it's usually pretty easy to merge it into the larger article. Or, it's clear that it can and should stand on its own.
This strategy worked very well on Augusto Pinochet. A terrible edit war, involving multiple admins (how shocking!) was dragging on for several weeks. Then I had the bright idea of moving the most controversial part into an article of its own. Everything stabilized in less than 10 days. Other contributors who had apparently been watching from the sidelines came in and started supplying information the rest of us didn't have.
Now the History of Chile series is well-balanced and includes both the pro-coup and anti-coup viewpoints in such a way that both socialists and anti-communists deem to be both accurate and unbiased. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:05, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I can see what you are trying to achieve by keeping your edits to a seperate page for possible merging later, or moving the essays on the controversy to a seperate page. The problem is that your edits consist of a lot of controversial material that emphasises the anti-climate change lobby's perspective without making any balanced attempt to explore the opposing view. Also, as I pointed out on the talk for that page, the article seems to be a copy of a similar article and material seems to be repeated from there for no obvious benefit.
Also, I'm unsure if these contributions are helpful because, already, considerable work is required to balance the article while those of us on this page are trying to explore what scientific consensus actually is. I'm not even sure the term has any official scientific and/or philosophical definition.
To the cynical eye it would seem that, by spreading bias out across multiple articles as much as possible, it makes the task of attaining neutrality harder by pushing up the cost of editing all these articles. I agree that a seperate page to describe controversies can be a useful tactic, but at the moment all it seems to be doing is creating a lot of POV stubs. For example, global warming alarmist is itself a POV term and would probably only be used by opponents. I'm uncovering more these anti-global warming stubs all over Wikipedia. Consolidating them will be a gargantuan task in itself. --Axon 15:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please help me by listing them all. You are welcome to edit my public watchlist at user:Ed Poor/science. Or would you like me to make a user:Axon/warming page? --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:06, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
I'm warm enough, ta. I'll try and compile a list here when I get the time. --Axon 16:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The list of controversial global warming topics include:

I notice many are not listed under the climate change category. In fact, in-consistant usage of global warming vs. climate change is used: which is the more neutral term? --Axon 12:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's keep Global warming survey. It should be expanded to include every such survey we can find: both of scientists and non-scientist.

Scientific opinion on climate change should merge with global warming survey if it's of the "yes I agree or no I don't" type. But if any scientists actually has anything scientific to say it should go in global warming.

By the way, I don't like the term "climate change" because that is way too general. It can include historical periods of cooling like the ice ages.

The Greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon and is not controversial (in and of itself). It's only the "enhanced greenhouse effect" of the global warming theory that is at issue: will CO2 emissions make the earth's air too hot?

I agree that Global warming skepticism should me merged with Global warming controversy, but the scientific objections should be merged with global warming theory.

Dr. C. seems to think that the world's scientists have proven (a) that the atmosphere is heating up too much and (b) that emissions of CO2 et al. are responsible. I wish he would stop deleting info from other scientists who disagree with him.

Moreover, the Wikipedia standards do NOT exalt "peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals" as the ultimate authority.

And anyone who's studied the history of sciences such as astronomy or medicine can think of several major examples of pioneering work being dismissed or suppressed. Pasteur and Lister may be household words now (pasteurization of milk, Listerine mouthwash]], but the scientific establishment made scant effort to duplicate their results, let alone understand them.

I've gone easy on William because he's such a nice guy, but the articles have suffered from a lack of balance. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:25, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

The above is a bit confusing: it seems there are three types of article here:
  • Descriptive: they simply describe the phenomena in question without going into detail regarding any controversies, such as Greenhouse effect annd global warming. There is only one of these per topic and this is as it should be.
  • Explainative: they explain the positions of various groups, for example (Scientific opinion on climate change, Global warming controversy, Global warming skepticism. There should possibly be either a) one per position (skeptic, environmentalist and/or scientific?) or b) one article for all sides of the argument The "flammable" material should possibly be moved into these sections (although the topic of what constitutes flammable or not is probably flammable in and of itself).
  • Stubs which are delete-worthy, most of which have already been highlighted and dealt with appropriately.
To be honest, I don't really want to get embroiled in a massive edits on the subject of global warming, I'm personally more interested in this article. I leave the consolidation of the above articles as an exercise to others. I think it would nice to see at most two or three articles on the subject of global warming for the reasons mentioned before.
My original point is that there is enough articles on the subject of global warming already in Wikipedia and I would like to move discussion of these topics to these pages. Discussion of global warming should be almost exclusively in the articles on global warming so as to ease the monitoring and ability to balance these articles rather that spread out over multiple articles, such as in scientific consensus. I think a paragraph here mentioning the possiblity of using consensus for political purposes and a link pointing to articles describing such controversies (such as with global warming) is sufficient.
And anyone who's studied the history of sciences such as astronomy or medicine can think of several major examples of pioneering work being dismissed or suppressed. And anyone who's studied the history of sciences such as astronomy or medicine can think of several major examples of pioneering work being dismissed or suppressed.
If you could post some links to some (reputable) sources on these histories that would be of enormous help in the drafting of this article. --Axon 15:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Outside world

Within science, the mechanism for forming and describing consensus is the normal process of conferences, teaching and publication. However, there is no particular mechanism for signalling the state of consensus to the "outside world".

I removed this section because I'm not really sure what it is saying: surely the various journals, conferences and leccutres are the "particular mechanism" by which consensus is communicted to the outside world? --Axon 17:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Ah... I was going to violently object to your removing this... but lets talk about it. Obviously I was unclear. Journals/conf/etc aren't read or attended by the outside world. Nor is there usually any means of "integrating" these to form a balance of the body of opinion. If you read enough journals, attend confs, talk to colleagues, you get a sense of where the science lies. But the outside world does none of this.
Sorry, maybe I deleted this in haste. I disagree that there is no mechanism to communicate ideas to the lay person. Its true the the average person on the street could understand a typical scientific paper (although as you said, with time and effort they could come to understand such works so on emight argue that no such effort to explain ones work simplistically is required). But, it is also true that there exists a journalistic medium surrounding science that carries out the work of re-writing papers and lectures in an understandable form and publishing this material in newspapers and popular science magazines (such New Scientist and Scientific American). --Axon 10:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the whole concept of consensus is a political one, and it's not really part of science. I can't imagine a particle physics deciding to go along with other physicists just for the sake of harmony. He'd rather try an experiment himself, and if he can't duplicate the results he'll say so. And anyone with a shred of decent intellectual honesty would say, by golly, I guess this is an irreproducible result so maybe it's not true -- even if I WANT it to be!
Consensus is really a political concept. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 20:37, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Wrong. On all counts. No one is saying that consensus should prevent sci work. Just that in some disciplines there *is* consensus. That there is consensus around QM, or GR, is not political.
I am in agreement with William - there is enough evidence that the term consensus can be used in a neutral fashion. As he points out, what is political about QM and GR? Also, not sure what this has to do with communication of scientific consensus to the general populace. --Axon 10:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page should be sent to VfD

The current page is nothing but uncited and undocumented personal research, in my opinion. :) I would agree that parts of this current page coincide with my own personal research.  :)) But other parts contradict my own personal research. 8(( Since the current page gives me not a single citation to a scholarly publication that even uses the term "scientific consensus," I am tempted to cite this page to VfD as a Neologism.  :) However, if I scan PubMed to see if scholars actually use the term at all, I find that the term is not used by scientists to describe the scientific method. So the paragraph that begins "Formerly, there was a consensus that Newtonian gravity . . ." should be deleted because that paradigm shift had nothing to do with "scientific consensus" but rather to do with scientific method. That is, by my experience of the scientific method, the process consists of developing some physical or mathematical demonstration of what is going on that is so clear that it convinces the new generation of scientists as they learn their way through all the possible explanations developed by their forebears. That is, in the scientific method, the driving force is the convincing quality of the demonstration which has nothing to do with consensus. In contrast, the term "scientific consensus" is used, for example, to describe the pseudoscience political process by which the Bush Administration organizes political appointments and funding to promote superstition. !ÔÔ! For all of the above reasons, I suggest that we have done enough personal research on the Scientific consensus page. Could we begin to cite to actual published scholars in this page? For example, we need to find some History of science scholar who actually uses this pseudoscience term "Scientific consensus." I understand that the term "scientific consensus" is used in the popular press of sound bites. But we need to find an actual scholar who analyzes the political forces that use the term "scientific consensus" to promote their political agenda. Apparently, the term "scientific consensus" has nothing to do with science. ---Rednblu | Talk 12:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As one of the contributors to this page, I would agree with much of your analysis: it is very difficult to uncover any definitive definition of scientific consensus and I would agree that it probably doesn't have a place in the description of Science. The only thing I would mention is that perhaps it is a term used in the Philosophy of Science, but I am by no means an expert. The term certainly gets used a lot in the media. --Axon 10:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 11:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I don't know if it helps, but if you look at the very early history of this page you'll see it was essentially created by Ed Poor to hold a quote from Michael Crichton that attacked global warming. So its beginnings were definitely very poor (ho ho). I don't object to you sending it to VFD but would probably vote against, because... well, firstly the page is much better now. Secondly, I think many of your arguments are invalid. Because... well, whether or not the term "sci cons" is much used, the *concept* clearly exists. You looked to see if the term was used by scientists and found it wasn't: but thats irrelevant: its meta-science, not science; you would find it used by historians/sociologists of science, not scientists, if anywhere. You say: my experience of the scientific method, the process consists of... which is fine, but again irrelevant. In sci conc we're not talking about anything with much releveance to how science is done or developed, but more with how its presented to the outside world, and the very vague process of how consensus is formed/communicated. Oh, and RnB says Apparently, the term "scientific consensus" has nothing to do with scientific method.. (gurk: I read too quickly: RnB had written sci meth|sci, which I think goes to far). Well yes: I agree (with slight caveats because it does have a very slight something to do; it will affect the environment in which young scientists are formed, for example) but that doesn't say anything about the validity of this page. (and ps: when I last looked SM was a mess).

The problem I had with this page is that, other than a few anti- and pro- global warming blogs out there, there is actually very little respectable source material on the subject of "scientific consensus" out there, what it is exactly, how it is defined, how it should be used, etc. If it has any definition at all it would seem to exist outside of the normal academic fields --Axon 11:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you both for examining my concerns. You have set me to thinking. 8)) I am looking for a scholar's analysis of the term. Maybe some political scientist has looked at it. :))

Whatever you can turn up on this subject would be most useful. My attempts to research it have hit a brick wall. If there any philosophy of science students out there, please help. --Axon 11:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV: scientific consensus is not the same thing as the scientific truth

This article is POV because it tries to pretend that the consensus of scientists can be used as a scientific argument for the validity of a theory - which is nonsense. I've added the POV tag. --Lumidek 23:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see where it reads that. If anything, the article makes little or no mention of how scientific consensus is used, and merely attempts to describe it and the philosophy of science issues surrounding it in a neutral fashion. Other than simply slapping a dispute template on the article, what evidence and reasons do you have for finding parts of this article to be "nonsense"?
If you are looking to "prove" and state as fact the controversial thesis that a theory is not validated by scientific consensus then, not only are you on the wrong page, but on the wrong web site. I think controversies on this subject a better left for pages where the controversy can be fully explored, hence my linking to the Global warming controversy and Evolution pages. See the above discussion for a call for credible links describing what SC is, or dealing with the issues of SC especially from a Philsophy of Sciene perspective. Do you yourself have any knowledge of Philosophy of Science or it's methodology? --Axon 02:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Feyerabend

I'm not sure why Feyerabend was linked to on this page: what associations does he have with the topic of SC --Axon 18:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inertia and Lomborg

(William M. Connolley 18:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I see we have an some text apparently moved from CS. Oh great. I dislike it. But in an effort to avoid yet more wars, I'll discuss it here first:

  • The skep env isn't generally considered to be scientific research, so isn't a good example
  • If it is accepted as an example, then it appears to be a counterexample: a book rejecting the consensus has found far more fame, attention and adulation than any number of book supporting the consensus.

So if it stays, the sense should be inverted.

I think "isn't generally considered to be scientific research" is sort of the point of what people mean when they say the work is ridiculed. Selling a lot of books is not the same as work being accepted or openly discussed among the scientific body of a particular field. — Cortonin | Talk 19:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I would like to see the section include more examples so that an understanding of the inertia of science can be gained by looking somewhere between all the examples given (and thus focus is not on a particular one, since clearly any single example will be disapproved of by some group). So if someone else can think of more examples, please add them. — Cortonin | Talk 19:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)) The reason that the DCSD didn't consider it to be objectively scientific misconduct (I forget the exact wording) was that it didn't come under the category of science. I haven't seen Lomborg disputing that, though he may have done so secretly :-). You didn't respond to my second point.

The initial ruling was that Lomborg "acted contrary to good scientific practice", but that no charges would be pressed. Lomborg did file a dispute, and it was ruled that the DCSD committed procedural errors in its decision, so it was asked to reassess the case. The DCSD then dismissed his dispute because the initial charges had been dropped, so it was ruled that there was no basis for his dispute. The Ministry of Science then declared the initial DCSD decision invalid. This case has also triggered a Ministry of Science review of the DCSD (or UVVU as they prefer to call it), its policies, and its procedures. [1] — Cortonin | Talk 22:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Regarding point 2: "Selling a lot of books is not the same as work being accepted or openly discussed among the scientific body of a particular field." — Cortonin | Talk 22:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 12:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Please don't try to present the ministry as somehow unbiased. Its part of the govt that appointed Lomborg - they had a clear interest in vindicating him.

I say delete the Lomborg example. He's not a scientist and the book is not scientific. Bad example and out of place. Surely there is a better example if we need one. This book should be subtitled how to lie with statistics. (hmm...does Wikipedia have an article about that book? How to Lie With Statistics, guess not :-). -Vsmith 02:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Lomborg is a statistics professor who, among other things, studies the use of statistics in environmental science. Are you implying statisticians have no role in the scientific process?? — Cortonin | Talk 08:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 12:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Lomborgs biog is here: http://www.lomborg.com/biograph.htm. He is assoc prof of stats.

(William M. Connolley 12:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I've removed the Lomborg example. I think it would be better inverted - proof that opposing the consensus gets you more notice than supporting it - but in the interests of peace I've simply removed it.

I've replaced the Lomborg example. It is a valid example of the sort of hostility shown to those who oppose the "orthodox" view.--JonGwynne 02:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest reading what you are wiping out with your POV edits JG. I have made some additional changes including examples more relevant than the as yet disputed Lomberg one with a reference to the Lomberg article for more info on the controversy there only to have it summarily wiped out by JG. I have reinstated my changes. Let's try to be reasonable here. -Vsmith 18:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, when I originally edited WMC's mods, they were the most recent. I didn't mean to wipe out your welcome additions. However, I do think you're a little off the mark on the Lomborg section so I'll go fix that up.--JonGwynne 19:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How disappointing: I go away from Wikipedia only to return and discover that, rather than actually exploring the concept of "scientific consensus" or posting helpful and authorative links on the subject, more anti-GW screed has been added.

Another more recent example of this is the controversial political scientist and environmental statistician Bjørn Lomborg.

Let me just state again for the record, given the other, more non-controversial examples of the inertia of scientific consensus, why do we need to cite the highly controversial example of Lomborg? As I have stated many times before, all discussion of the controveries of GW more properly belongs on the Global warming controversy page where it can be more properly monitored for balance - this is just another example of the technique I call Spreading the NPOV. It is for this reason I would like to see this section merged with that page or the Lomboz page. It is itself controversial whether the rejection of Lomboz's work is due to scientific consensus.

'In some cases, those who question the current paradigm are heavily criticized or ridiculed for their assessments.

What evidence is there for the above? --Axon 17:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, as you might note we have aquired a Lomborg superfan here. I just deleted much of the Lomberg and GW controversy stuff again, and took out the ridiculed from the first of the section. I expect our superfan will be back to revert my changes. -Vsmith 21:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, Vsmith, on what planet is reverting the article to say: "Lomborg's book is wrong and biased" at all NPOV?? How many times has that revert been made now? There's no way that could at all be possibly considered NPOV under any interpretation whatsoever. — Cortonin | Talk 10:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's not quote out of context. The statement reads: Many scientists working in the fields discussed in the book strongly questioned the interpretations presented by Lomborg and pointed out numerous significant errors and bias in the book. Perhaps we should quote from the sources this comes from, the many scientists part is kind of weasely. But, rather than a long discussion of that controversy I would recommend removal of the reference to Lomberg from this article. Doesn't really fit as an example anyway. -Vsmith 12:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"pointed out numerous significant errors and bias in the book" is directly saying that there ARE numerous significant errors and bias in the book, and that the subject of the sentence simply came along and showed where they are. This is POV, because it's directly saying there are errors and bias in the book. I surely hope you could see how that is overwhelmingly strong POV. I don't even care one bit about the Lomborg book, I just don't like to see things written like that on Wikipedia. — Cortonin | Talk 19:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It might be appropriate to remove the Lomborg example if most people thought it was "insignificant" when describing the interaction of scientific consensus. It would NOT be appropriate to remove the Lomborg example just for thinking the book is wrong, as clearly by definition a book which challenges the consensus is GOING to be thought wrong by a majority, yet there is still value in describing this interaction. If you think you can find other more clear or significant examples of resistance to consensus challenging, then feel free to add a few and then we can debate which ones are most descriptive. — Cortonin | Talk 19:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you take the time to read the detailed critiques given on the Sci Am site as well as others, you will see that the errors and bias have been well documented. I don't think this is the place to ppost a number of those examples to back up my statement that you object to. Much better to remove the ref to Lomborg from this article as it is not a good example and remains too controverial. I don't see you criticizing JG's edits for being POV, surely you don't find his edits all NPOV? Vsmith 16:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't find every word of JG's edits to be NPOV, but it's a step up from calling an entire body of work "wrong". I don't care if you DO document other people who think it's wrong, that doesn't mean you just say the entire work is a "significant error". You can say, "Those views are not supported by the majority" or "the general consensus of climatologists disagrees" or "It is widely disputed" (provided those statements can be documented) or any number of similar things which would be far better than flat out saying it's wrong, in error, or biased. As for JG's edits, I think the word "orthodox" is a poor choice of words because it can carry negative connotations, and this does not keep a NPOV tone to the statements. I think the attempts to discredit Lomborg are fairly well documented, given the DCSD case and its resulting conflict, but I think perhaps using "discredit" in that tone in that sentence may be considered POV by some, since the word "discredit" is more often used by supporters of the people being discredited. So in the interest of maximizing NPOV, I would take the JG version and rephrase the portions which use words like "orthodox" and "discredit", so that the information and description are still there, but with a less loaded "this is what happened" description. — Cortonin | Talk 04:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The issue here isn't about whether Lomboz is right or wrong, or even whether he is controversial or not. The issue is whether Lomboz belongs on this page. As I understand it, Lomboz's work deals specifically with global warming and not much else. The fact that it even relates to scientific consensus - specifically, the opinion stated here as fact that Lomboz's findings have been rejected because they go against scientific consensus - is itelf controversial. As I have advocated before, the content thus belongs more properly in global warming controversy.
This page, indeed this very section already contains multiple, non-controversial examples of scientific consensus (continental drift, symbiogenesis, etc.). What is more, discussion of the controversial subject of global warming should be kept on a few pages at most, and more properly a single page, so as it can be closely monitored (and to fire wall the the resulting flame wars to as fewer pages as possible).
I would also like to point out that little work has been done on this page to explore what scientific consensus actually is, and far too much work has been done trying to link it to the issue of scientific consensus. Do we have any clear idea about where the term comes from? Who uses? Which field of study does it belong to? Does a consensus apply to all science, or only specific fields? Does anyone have any authorative links on this subject?
Finally, the heading of this section is itself POV with it's implicit assumption that ideas are rejected through inertia - ie. lazy thinking - rather than the pro-active rejection of new ideas necesary for any field of intellectual inquiry. --Axon 11:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's always going to be the case that when something is rejected which is counter to the scientific consensus, those supporting the consensus will say it's rejected because it's wrong, and those questioning the consensus will say it's rejected because it goes against the consensus. The only way you'll find examples that DON'T have this problem is in historical examples where the consensus has already changed, so people can discuss the situation without getting personally involved. For some reason, there always seem to be a lot of people who make the assumption that the current scientific consensus is always correct, and only in the past are there cases where the scientific consensus was wrong, and then they always give the consensus credit for having come around to the right answer in the end. But, clearly if at any point in time we can look back in the past and find examples where the scientific consensus actively resisted ideas of worth, then it would be a bit naive to keep making the assumption that it no longer happens. Yet still, this assumption keeps getting made. I think this phenomenon is an important part of scientific consensus and worthy of description, and it's in fact part of what this inertia section is trying to get at. — Cortonin | Talk 12:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above would certainly be worthy of note, provided adequate and authorative evidence is provided to back it up. However, what I fear you are talking about is not scientific consensus but more specifically the controversy surrounding global warming, discussion of which will always belong more properly on that page or the global warming controversy page, not only for reasons of accuracy - itself controversial - but for ensuring a discussion of scientific consunsus is carried out on this page without it being swamped by global warming screed.

I also note that we are focussing purely on why scientific consensus is "wrong" or "right" - whatever that means - without anyone performing a proper discussion of what scientific discussion actually is first! Does anyone have an comments on my other remarks above? Or is this page simply going to become another addundum to the global warming articles? --Axon 12:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed controversial and POV bit about Lomborg. It doesn't fit here - poor example. And it is material directly copied from the consensus science article and thus duplicative. Vsmith 16:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne

(William M. Connolley 23:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You are invited to view Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne and comment thereon.

A personal essay:

Philosophy

The issue of consensus is important in the Philosophy of science. The view that the goal of science is the creation of such a consensus holds that the scientist is a skeptic using his or her analytical and critical faculties to evaluate all evidence presented before delivering an opinion. Unlike other forms of knowledge, scientific knowledge consists of messages that are consensible - that is they can be mutually understood so that they can be evaluated for agreement or dissent and have the possibility of becoming part of the consensus. Thus, consensibility is a pre-requisite for consensuality.

Science as dissension

An alternative view to consensual science is dissension science - that is science is the process of creating new ideas which are then tested . In this view the scientists is a explorative individual who, through the use of reason and imagination, postulates a hypothesis

Whilst both views of science are debated, there exists the possibility the truth lies somewhere in between.

Non-scientific dissent

Scientific consensus is sometimes used in non-scientific political debates in public forums as a mean of settling arguments or disputing received wisdom. Various non-scientists dispute consensus itself and express dissent on other grounds. For examples of public debates where scientific consensus has featured please see Global warming controversy and Evolution.

I cut the 3 sections above, because it sounds like some Wikipedian's personal attempt to justify the mainstream of environmental or anti-Creationist thought as objective reasoning. This obscures the fact that there is a dispute.

I would like the topic of "scientific consensus" to represent all views fairly, in accordance with Wikipedia policy as set forth by co-founder Larry Sanger.

Also, it may be useful to distinguish between:

  • cases where 95% or more of scientists agree about something; and,
  • cases where non-scientists such as politicians and activists claim there is a "scientific consensus" about something, to justify a policy they are pursuing

Statements by prominent scientific bodies, as well as surveys of scientists in various fields, would clearly be relevant here.

Note, however, that interested parties may object to having their claims of consensus questioned and thus seek to censor Wikipedia articles -- which might require arbcom action to preserve NPOV. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 16:38, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Relevance to public policy

Most people agree with the following:

  • If there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about a matter, then we should conform policy to that viewpoint.

However, not all people agree with what has become the most common variation of this:

  1. If there is scientific consensus on a matter, this means that there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about it
  2. If there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about a matter, then we should conform policy to that viewpoint.
  3. Therefore, if there is scientific consensus on a matter, then we should policy to the consensus.

I regret to say that it has taken me three years to realize that this kind of thinking is what makes the claims of "scientific consensus" on global warming such a big deal.

Everyone agrees we should rely on the science. But we would need two agree on both of the following to agree about global warming:

  • that there is scientific consensus on global warming; and,
  • that scientific consensus implies reliable science

I rush to add that opinion polls show that the American public in general has increasingly come to believe that there is a scientific consensus (or near-unanimity of scientific opinion) on global warming. I think the accuracy of these polls is beyond question.

What makes die-hards like me so stubborn is that we're not convinced that 67% of scientists or even 95% of scientists is a large enough majority. For me, at least, disagreement by as many as 5% or 10% is enough for me to want to double-check everything. Especially when I find that people like Al Gore have tried to suppress dissent by painting skeptics like Fred Singer as associated with Rev. Moon (an obvious nut case) or oil companies (clearly out for themselves). --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 17:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely a critical nexus of the matter. Making claim #1, that "If there is scientific consensus on a matter, this means that there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about it" requires one to make the assumption that scientific consensus will always necessarilly reflect a reliable and accurate scientific viewpoint. Both the history and the philosophy of science clearly urge caution about utilizing such a claim. — Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am a scientist, and I believe quite firmly in the scientific method as a method of gaining understanding and knowledge about the world. But there's a world of difference between supporting the scientific method and thinking that the conclusions of all scientists, or even the majority of scientists, are true. This seems to me like an argument formed as, "All people make mistakes and get things wrong, except scientsts." — Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In order for the scientific method to actually function the way it's supposed to, all scientists have to actively question their own beliefs and assumptions when they are challenged. For science to correct itself with time, new theories which contradict existing accepted consensus need to be openly examined. Yet there's clearly an inertial tendency which slows this, in preference of the preexisting beliefs and consensus of scientists. Just look at the statements early founders such as Planck and Einstein made about quantum mechanics. — Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There's also a tendency for many scientists to do the same thing that all groups of humans are found to do, which is to conform. If you ask a group of people whether they think A or B is true, and a slight majority think A is true, then if you tell them all that a majority think A is true and then go around and ask them again, the majority which picks A will increase. It's for these reasons that it's better to try to base policy on reliable scientific viewpoints than on scientific consensus. The only trick then becomes figuring out what the reliable scientific viewpoints are. One certain prerequisite for figuring out what the reliable scientific viewpoints are is to have all information available, whether it supports or contradicts the scientific consensus. — Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"should be"

The phrase "should be" does not belong on this article outside of quotation marks. Assessments of what "should" be are entirely personal perspective. To be encyclopedic and NPOV, we need to instead describe what is, and we can even describe the effects of those things. It is okay to say that careful evaluation of new research prevents science from diverging into error, but it is poor wording to say that this "should be" done. We instead need to take the more encyclopedic and detailed route and describe what the actual effects are of science doing otherwise. — Cortonin | Talk 19:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I disagree with you.