"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 …
"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.
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."
Crichton's "State of Fear" is an eloquent, heavily researched and foot-noted semi-fiction book that was years ahead of what we're dealing with currently. Though it's centered around eco-terrorism, it's also an interesting commentary about pseudo "experts" in scientific fields. He left us too soon.
"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"
Dark matter/energy? [lol]
No one has ever seen nor measured either of these items but their existence is considered science simply because IF THEY EXISTED, they would nicely fill the holes in the current equations.
There are numerous other examples.
The point being that "science" isn't absolute nor infallible. Yet "The Science" was one of the justifications used during the Covid scamdemic to divide people into believers and non-believers.
"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.
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."
Michael Crichton
Crichton's "State of Fear" is an eloquent, heavily researched and foot-noted semi-fiction book that was years ahead of what we're dealing with currently. Though it's centered around eco-terrorism, it's also an interesting commentary about pseudo "experts" in scientific fields. He left us too soon.
That is a great read.
It is. I first read it in 2006, and twice since then. It might be time to pull it off the shelf again. Glad you enjoyed it.
"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"
Dark matter/energy? [lol]
No one has ever seen nor measured either of these items but their existence is considered science simply because IF THEY EXISTED, they would nicely fill the holes in the current equations.
There are numerous other examples.
The point being that "science" isn't absolute nor infallible. Yet "The Science" was one of the justifications used during the Covid scamdemic to divide people into believers and non-believers.
Science isn't intended to be absolute or infallible.
"Because Science(tm)" is presently used as an argument from authority, the PMC version of "The Bible States".