So first off science does not work off of consensus you pride yourself as knowing science and say something silly. sounds like some crap cook university might say.
Consensus is Not Science
The late Michael Crichton, MD, author, film producer, put it this way:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of”
(From a talk at the California Institute of Technology on January 17, 2003, printed in Three Speeches by Michael Crichton, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, 2009.)
Largest CO2 producer is the ocean, it sure the hell doesn't come from man!
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
1 comment
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I agree that consensus is NOT science. Consensus is powerful but not as powerful as science.
Consensus rules that you JUST have to agree with someone who may have reached a point of realization about a problem by unproven means or "sweet ,confident smart but twisted thinking without using science at all. Many people have been fooled into consensus and led us into stupid things like wars and bad investments. I offer Trump as a good example of this
Some people think that democracy is just a matter of consensus. There is much more to it than that.e.g. It largely depends upon the integrity of our leaders.. One should be prepared to think a problem fully through as scientists do. Of course if you can reach consensus by agreeing with scientists,Then you are tapping into a whole well established and tried mechanism of checking, re-checking and making your claims in a slightly different way from your competing scientists whose job and reputation depends on not using tricks, delusions, laziness or fakery. True scientist work forward into the unknown darkness knowing the strength of honest proof with evidence.
That is why you need science for full democracy and USA needs to realize all this before November.
Mcfluwster
Level 7
May 4, 2024
0
Science is not political you are making it political....just as politicians would side with the climate alarmist
@1patriot Reply to 1patriot
My ideal would be that there is no politics at all but that groups of people only get together to discuss a range of scientifically supported investigations into solving each problem.
So why would I try to make science political? . Science HAS to be unbiased and selective at only accepting solutions which have a chance of success . I,E they have devised an hypothesis and proved it with science method.
Yes I agree my ideal would take A VERY long time to establish but just by gradually improving the science understanding of the whole population we would greatly increase the peace and happiness in the world.
Try it????
@Mcfluwster as i will say again science, real science can never be political. I would agree politicians pick up or make up science and push a false narrative and will pay scientist to push their lie. Safe and effective comes to mind. politicians and friends (big pharma} have paid science to take it from a false angle not related to science at all. How do the scientist being silenced get the studies out to the people if they don't have the media to put there word out. many people are lazy they don't want to read a 20 page document written by a scientist. they will listen to the MSM to give them the truth, and the politician will parrot the MSM.
one of the most power tools of war is media! you are blaming Trump for starting a war? what war was that? Obama started the Ukraine and Biden put it into full swing. biden also give 80 billion worth of war equipment to Isis in Afghanistan. Israel started the other war and the ADL and many Zionist are pushing that genocide now. none of this is related to science.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.