Hostility towards a scientific consensus: A sign of a crank

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/hostility_towards_a_scientific_consensus.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link

"It has often been written on this blog and elsewhere that the mark of a true crank is hatred of the scientific consensus, be it consensus regarding the theory of evolution, the science that says homeopathy is impossible, anthropogenic global warming; various areas of science-based medicine; or the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Perhaps the most famous expression of distrust of a scientific consensus is the famous speech by Michael Crichton, in which he famously said:

"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."

To which I (and many others) responded, "Bullshit! Period."

In fact science is all about coming to a consensus, but it's about coming to a consensus based on data, experimentation, and evidence, a consensus that has reproducible results that are, as Crichton put it, verifiable by reference to the real world. After all, what is a scientific theory like the theory of evolution or Einstein's theory of relativity but a statement of the current scientific consensus regarding a major scientific topic? What is peer review but quality control (making sure the scientific methodology is sound) coupled with testing new science against the current consensus to see where it fits in or where it exposes weaknesses? What is science but attempting to forge a consensus regarding theories and statements that most accurately describe the universe in a useful and predictable way?

Of course, questioning the consensus is often necessary in science. Indeed, it is critical to scientific advancement. However, there is a huge difference between questioning a current consensus and producing the data and experimental evidence to show that there is a real scientific question and JAQing off about science. The latter, raising spurious or already answered questions about a scientific finding or theory one doesn't like, belongs to the province of cranks and denialists, and it is what they are very good at. The problem is that they aren't very good at realizing why their questions are not worthy of the attention that they think they are. A lovely example of this showed up on the Discovery Institute's propaganda arm, its version of Age of Autism, so to speak, namely Evolution News and Views. In it, the Kent Heckenlively of the creationist set, the ever excitable Casey Luskin, penned a typical bit of silliness in which he asks the question, When Is it Appropriate to Challenge the "Consensus"?

..."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, when will MSM get a clue? (Note: Rhetorical question.) IMO, this is a worthy read, sanely addressing the issues of creationists, anti-vaccinationists, and other denialists attacking actual science with nonsense.

In my world the sun comes up every morning and as it moves across the sky goes down at night.


They should teach both sides of that theory in school.

:hi:

Science is usualle advanced by experiments in which observations or measurements are made which are difficult, imprecise, and expensive. This is because if the experiments were easy, accurate, and cheap, someone would most likely have done them already. Of course, occasionally someone comes up with the really clever experiment which is the exception, but the above is generally true.

The imprecision of new scientific observations tends to leave room for some considerable bickering over the interpretation of the measurements. This leads to more observations, some competition, and gradually an emerging consensus as to what the correct interpretation is. The difficulty and expense tend to mean that experiments are not repeated and confirmed by other labs, but rather, other labs may approach the problem differently. After all, it's hard to write a grant proposal to repeat someone elses work -- it's not likely to be funded.

And of course, funding also involves consensus. Some peer group looks at your proposal and evaluates it. If it doesn't fit with the consensus about what is an "important" area, or a reasonable approach to an "important problem", your proposal will likely be turned down. So the consensus is influential in deciding the direction that scientific research (and publication) will take.

:hi: