Why is scientific consensus important? How do we ascribe a level of importance to consensus? The consensus can change when new facts become available, or when a majority decides to describe something in a different way, so, how important is it?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Consent
- Thread starter Chesterton
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,811
- 52,884
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
In scientific circles consensus can mean *everything* in terms of access to public funding and/or full access to all publishing channels.
Upvote
0
CabVet
Question everything
- Dec 7, 2011
- 11,738
- 176
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Scientific consensus is only important for creationists that believe that there is a conspiracy against the Bible. In the time of Darwin, the scientific consensus was that God created every organism in this planet 6,000 years ago. Yet, look at where we are now. If the evidence is on your side, no consensus stands.
Upvote
0
CabVet
Question everything
- Dec 7, 2011
- 11,738
- 176
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You guys should go back in time and let Darwin know about this as apparently, he didn't get your memo. He didn't really care about the consensus in his time and presented a theory supported by strong evidence, which is rock solid after more than 150 years of scrutiny.
Upvote
0
lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Because if you can persuade 1,000 people that something is true, it is more likely to be true than if you can persuade only one person.
Even if you could persuade ten, they might still belong to a small group predisposed towards some wacko theory or other (witness EU), but if you can persuade most appropriately qualified people that your theory is correct, then it is much less likely that some philosophical or other agenda is at work.
Upvote
0
Sure, and I personally prefer a 'non standard' cosmology theory that enjoys tons of *empirical* support too, but that doesn't negate my points.
Upvote
0
Much of it *is* published, not that most folks would even know that. Furthermore I've never claimed that there was a 'conspiracy', I'm simply noting the facts.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,811
- 52,884
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
And maybe you should go back in time as well.
To a time when a certain woman said CONSENSUS OF OPINION CAN TAKE A HIKE, and ended up getting the President's [JFK] Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
Upvote
0
CabVet
Question everything
- Dec 7, 2011
- 11,738
- 176
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
She had the lack of evidence and proper testing on her side. But thanks for posting another example of consensus taking a hike. As you showed, evolution can be challenged with proper reasoning, even if it is a consensus.
P.S.: The consensus that you are referring to was created, sponsored and pushed by pharmaceutical companies that wanted to profit, not scientists, but feel free to bear false witness. To use your own words, thalidomide happened in spite of science, not because of it.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,811
- 52,884
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That didn't do Europe & Canada much good, did it?
You're welcome.
Right -- like rabbits in the Precambrian, that some in Wikipedia say probably wouldn't be a viable challenge?
Ya ... ya.
Heard that No True Scotsman bologna before.
I didn't believe it then; and I don't believe it now.
I never fail to disappoint, do I?
No.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,811
- 52,884
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
This "good hypothesis" generated ... well ... a whole generation of evidence, didn't it?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,811
- 52,884
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
That typically depends on whether it's empirical based physics, or "theoretical" physics.
True. Alas however, bad ones sometimes generate a consensus as well.
Upvote
0
CabVet
Question everything
- Dec 7, 2011
- 11,738
- 176
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
No, you do not. Here is a good definition for you:
Bearing false witness: to falsely accuse someone else of wrongdoing.
Examples:
Accusing "scientists" of being responsible for deaths cause by thalidomide = bearing false witness.
Accusing "scientists" of being responsible for abortions = bearing false witness.
Accusing "scientists" of being responsible for the crash of the Hindenburg = bearing false witness.
Accusing "scientists" of being responsible for the crash of the Challenger = bearing false witness.
Well, next time you say the same about the Bible and the crusades, I will take it with a grain of salt.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
