Jump to content
IGNORED

Scientific Consensus


Mr. M

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,380
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,361
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 2/6/2023 at 3:30 AM, Mr. M said:

It has recently been stated in a discussion found in the controversial issues forum regarding Carbon influences on climate change  by @Slibhin that an 80% consensus in science constitutes overwhelming support

Consensus is not, nor has ever been, a scientific metric. Appeals to consensus are, in fact, logic fallacies (technical breaches of logic).

The consensus may be the result of rational arguments, but it's only those arguments which logically contribute legitimate confidence in a conclusion. Any resulting consensus is utterly irrelevant to legitimate confidence in a conclusion. Even if 100% of people (including scientists) agreed on a particular conclusion, we could all be wrong. Therefore, consensus itself (in the absence of provided supporting arguments) is logically meaningless.

 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,082
  • Content Per Day:  0.67
  • Reputation:   974
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

The consensus of experts in any field can sometimes be wrong.  It is almost always better than anything else available.   The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's where the smart money is.

Still, I'd prefer to look at the evidence.    The consensus of specialists as to whether or not I need a medical procedure is certainly persuasive; I still ask for more information.

 

 

 

Edited by The Barbarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...