Talk:Scientific consensus

Webster definition
The Merriam-Webster passage is already in the Consensus article. It is not needed here too, let alone twice. Duplication or triplication of text usually does not improve an encyclopedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarify that "scientific consensus" is an opinion expressed in the absence of a scientific (tested) hypothesis.
I propose editing the first sentence as follows:

"A consensus of scientists is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the group of scientists, perhaps in a particular field of study, expressed regarding a particular topic in the absence of a scientific (tested) hypothesis."

Consensus is opinion, regardless of the credentials of those holding the opinion. The purpose of the scientific method is to identify facts and develop a hypothesis explaining these facts. This yields scientific knowledge.

There is no such thing as a scientific consensus as this is not a product of the scientific method. Science produces measurable or testable knowledge. There is no way to test a consensus for truth absent a tested hypothesis.

While there may be consensus of a group or organization of scientists, this does not necessarily mean a general consensus among all scientists. The numbers or percentages of scientists expressing a consensus have no scientific value in validating the truth of a consensus; only a tested hypothesis can do this.

Jamesmsnead (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you've misunderstood what SC means. Your There is no such thing as a scientific consensus as this is not a product of the scientific method is wrong. There is no requirement for SC to be a product of SM. Indeed, that's part of the point: it isn't. Things produced via SM - which is not itself a clearly defined process - inform SC but that's not all William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not sure what role "hypothesis" plays above. The scientific consensus typically is with respect to a theory or hypothesis. It can e.g. address the question if a particular hypothesis is well-supported by the evidence. It's not an alternative form of science, its one way to interpret the state of the science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is not a blog for expressing baseless and wrong opinions. 2600:8802:5913:1700:A1B4:5D50:CB6E:8C2C (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You wrote seven responses to seven six-year-old contributions that already had been responded to six years ago. Just saying. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The use of "scientific" in combination with "consensus" is meaningless. Definitions of scientific: "of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science" and "conducted in the manner of science or according to results of investigation by science : practicing or using thorough or systematic methods scientific advertising scientific baby care a scientific boxer." The formation of a consensus is not done by the methods or principles of science.

With this being said, I think the opening sentence should be written as:

"A scientific consensus is a non-scientific expression of opinion by a group of scientists used to relate an interpretation of the state of a scientific topic when no scientific (tested) hypothesis exists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmsnead (talk • contribs) 17:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article now reads: Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. It says nothing about done by the methods or principles of science. The science is done and a group of scientists agree about the results. That seems abundantly clear (except to those who simply don't like it). Vsmith (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * regarding your ideas that "there is no such thing as a scientific consensus" and that "the use of 'scientific' in combination with 'consensus' is meaningless", please note that the literature strongly disagrees with you:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"

! Google !! Scholar !! Books
 * "Scientific consensus"
 * 48600
 * 74000
 * }
 * Wikipedia is here to reflect the literature, not your opinions. - DVdm (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. find a reliable source before proposing changes like that.. And personally I think reasoning like that is silly when reality shows otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is here to reflect the literature, not your opinions. - DVdm (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. find a reliable source before proposing changes like that.. And personally I think reasoning like that is silly when reality shows otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I would agree that "scientific consensus" is, indeed, essentially an opinion. But the value of SC is that it is the very well supported opinion of those who are experts in the field, and thereby superior to the casual opinions of non-experts. And I understand that the essence of the scientific method is basing such opinions on objectively derived bases, such as scientifically-tested hypotheses.


 * While I cannot claim as profound an understanding of the scientific method as Drs. William and Stephan, yet it seems to me that this proposed change displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the significance and validity of scientific consensus, and appears to be an attempt to undermine its credibility. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I sort of expect next they'll argue that medical opinion doesn't exist ;--) Dmcq (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Scientific consensus is not an opinion, it is the agreement of the majority of opinions of experts in the field. It's sort of like what climate is to weather. 2600:8802:5913:1700:A1B4:5D50:CB6E:8C2C (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This page is not a blog for expressing baseless and wrong opinions, James. 2600:8802:5913:1700:A1B4:5D50:CB6E:8C2C (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if I am not tracking all of the comments. This editing format appears quite cumbersome.

Perhaps I have missed it, but I have not seen any argument that concludes that a scientific consensus is anything other than an opinion by some group of people, perhaps scientists. In the minds of those stating the consensus or those agreeing with the consensus, the consensus may appear to be "well supported", but an opinion is not a substitute for a tested hypothesis. Hence, these is no scientific credibility in such an opinion because it cannot be tested.

Would a scientist make reference to a scientific consensus in a published paper to support the validity of a proposed hypothesis? Would they also, then, not be obligated to report other opinions? On what basis would they argue one opinion is more valid than the others? Is it just numbers of people sharing the consensus?

A medical opinion is (presumably) the opinion of a doctor based on an examination of a patient. Should the doctor conclude that the patient has, for example, a cancer growth, whether the patient actually has cancer cannot be determined until a biopsy or similar test is performed and the results scientifically examined. Only then is the validity of the opinion established and a course of treatment determined. Jamesmsnead (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * regarding the fact that you "have not seen any argument that concludes that a scientific consensus is anything other than ", please have a look at our wp:talk page guidelines, and note that this is an article talk page, where we discuss changes to the article. We are not supposed to discuss our opinions about the subject of the article. You proposed to make a change, and other editors explained why that probably won't happen. For Wikipedia, our opinions about the subject are completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is here to reflect the scientific consensus, so to speak — see pillar #2 of the famous wp:five pillars. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * To DVdm, I am addressing each of the objections as is appropriate to support my proposed change.
 * One person said to do a Google Scholar search, so I did. I found this article "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science" that I believe was published in Nature. Note the use of "perceived" in the title. The abstract opens with "Although most experts agree that CO2 emissions are causing anthropogenic global warming (AGW), public concern has been declining." If the general group are all "experts", who is right? Which sub-group's scientific consensus is valid? The article appears to emphasize that the role of scientific consensus is to persuade the public to adopt a view in the absence of a tested hypothesis.
 * Are there other reasons not to adopt my proposed change?
 * Jamesmsnead (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * But your thesis is that there is "no such thing as a scientific consensus." If indeed there were no such thing, then it could not be perceived either. So this particular source directly contradicts your thesis. Now of course you can guess the reason why the author added the word "perceived" in the title. If you feel/think/argue that they do it to express the opinion that SC is "imagined" or "dreamt up" (aka merely perceived), then you are interpreting a source and using your interpretation to add content here. But that is not allowed per wp:NOR (last paragraph) and wp:SYNTHESIS. - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link to the indent instructions. My proposed change is, as stated before, "A scientific consensus is a non-scientific expression of opinion by a group of scientists used to relate an interpretation of the state of a scientific topic when no scientific (tested) hypothesis exists." Is there any objections to this change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmsnead (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes there are objections. Haven't you read the responses above? You wre asked for sourrces to bac up what you said. You have not produced any. There are sources for what is in the article. Dmcq (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, there are objections. Haven't you read the responses?


 * You are a new editor, and are exceedingly uninformed about how things are done here. You should start remedying that deficiency by reading some of the items that have been posted on your Talk page. Start with Contributing to Wikipedia. For the discussion here I direct your attention the Wikipedia policy referred to as WP:Verifiabilty (or WP:V for short). This one of our "core content policies", meaning that you need to understand it. The bottom line is that we do not add or delete material based on personal opinion; it must be based on reliable sources. And your grabbing ahold of a single word in a single article title, and trying twist that around as a proof that "scientific consensus is non-scientific", is just not going to fly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article appears to emphasize that the role of scientific consensus is to persuade the public to adopt a view in the absence of a tested hypothesis.
 * It only "appears" that way to someone already committed to believing that. The article says nothing about "absence of a tested hypothesis". 2600:8802:5913:1700:A1B4:5D50:CB6E:8C2C (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ironically, that article in Nature by Stephan Lewandowsky discusses ‘manufacture of doubt’ by political and vested interests, which often challenge the existence of the scientific consensus, i.e., the sort of thing you're doing here on a meta level. 2600:8802:5913:1700:A1B4:5D50:CB6E:8C2C (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am a new editor. Experience in editing on Wikipedia has no bearing on the correctness of the opening statement which is: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study." It has been agreed that a scientific consensus is an opinion not a tested hypothesis. Further, "scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists" is an incorrect statement. It asserts that only a single such collective opinion exists and that such an opinion reflects the entire community of scientists. While it may be one opinion of one group, it is not necessarily the only opinion as I have illustrated by cited example. Therefore,the opening definition must be corrected to properly convey that such an opinion is but one opinion by one group.Jamesmsnead (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The opening definition will be "corrected" only if we all agree here by wp:CONSENSUS, in the Wikipedia sense, that is. It looks that there is wp:NOCONSENSUS for your proposal, so, per policy, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That is one of the first things new editors learn here. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And the first and most important step in changing something like that is to provide sources for what you say. You or any other editors own thoughts are WP:OR and don't count as reliable evidence as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Reasoning and logic with therefores is to a very large extent just waffle and irrelevant, Reliable sources are what really matter. Wikipedia is not a forum for personal thoughts. Dmcq (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The opening definition "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study." is without a cited source establishing that there can only be one scientific consensus; that no other consensus can exist within a community of scientists in a particular flied of study. Thus, where is the validity of the statement established per the noted criticism? As written, I argue that such a reference is needed to establish its validity. If no source is available, we should focus on the improper English usage of "the" in this definition. I argue that the uses of "the" is improper and should be changed to "one" in two instances. Jamesmsnead (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)?
 * No. The second sentence is also covered by the citation 'Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity'. You can't have more than one consensus. If there is no general agreement then there is no consensus. Could you stop the 'I argue' type business and just stop saying anything till you have a source. Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum. The talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed no. This is not the place to argue about the subject. See wp:Talk page guidelines. Second level warning on your talk page: - DVdm (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "Experience in editing on Wikipedia" very much has a bearing on your ignorance of 1) the process by which we determine the "correctness" of any statement, 2) the concept that "correctness" alone is a not a sufficient criterion for inclusion, and 3) the fundamental concept that Wikipedia does have standards regarding what is published and how we decide what. You are showing a complete lack of knowledge (and interest?) of these matters, which is like not knowing what a steering wheel is, nor even a road, yet you want to jump into the car and drive. As Dcmq has said, Wikipedia is not a forum, and your uninformed comments are disruptive. Please stop. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The validity of the opening sentence is stated to be based on the citation following the second sentence. That citation refers to a non-authoritative website that makes up their own definition for "scientific consensus." Thus, it is not a proper citation and should be removed. The fact remains that no authoritative citation is provided for the opening sentence.Jamesmsnead (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Blah, blah, blah. Your notions of "validity", "proper citation", and "authoritative", as well as your notions of Wikipedia standards and process, are entirely uninformed, and at variance with what the rest of us understand. Lacking shared understanding of these concepts, there is no basis of discussion with you. As you evidence no interest in correcting your ignorance, there is no purpose of this discussion. And therefore it can be closed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In reviewing Wikipedia's reference material guidelines, the following is stated: Examples of reliable academic sources: "(a) the piece of work itself (the article, book); (b) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist); or (c) the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)." The stated reference does not meet any of these conditions. It is not an academic article or book with a publisher. The Wikipedia guidelines continue with: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks; Books published by respected publishing houses; Magazines; Journals; Mainstream newspapers. Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria." The stated reference does not meet these criteria. Hence, the first reference should be removed.Jamesmsnead (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't forget another policy—wp:NOCONSENSUS—that can trump just about every other policy. As you don't seem to have a consensus to remove the reference, and as repeating the same thing here is unlikely to be helpful, in this case you will have to seek wp:dispute resolution. There are several options. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been agreed that a scientific consensus is an opinion not a tested hypothesis.
 * False. 2600:8802:5913:1700:A1B4:5D50:CB6E:8C2C (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the Green facts website and it says in the about us 'To this end, The GreenFacts Initiative publishes ... These are peer reviewed under the control of an independent Scientific Committee.' Please see GreenFacts Foundation from sourcewatch about it. As far as I can see it is good enough to use as a reliable source for the statement in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No, this is not a credible source as it is not an academic organization with appropriately identified authors or a respected publishing house. On the organization's "about us" page, it clearly states: "The founders agreed that the current state of scientific knowledge on these issues is best provided by scientific consensus reports, produced by large panels of scientific experts under the authority of international organizations, such as WHO, FAO, IARC, UNEP, and the European Commission." The group provided a definition of "scientific consensus" that met their political objectives. This is a circular argument in that a scientific consensus is what the group needs it to be to achieve their goal of using such scientific consensus to validate their political views where they admit scientific knowledge is lacking.Jamesmsnead (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It meets Wikipedia's definition as far as I can see. Your own thoughts do not. If you wish to dispute it as a reliable source please query at WP:RSN. Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * To the previous point about the lack of a consensus on removing the incorrect reference. The reference was an error as it does not meet WP criteria. If there is objection to correcting an obvious error, then the validity of this entire entry is negated. As I object to the reference, there is no longer a consensus to keep it. Please remove it.Jamesmsnead (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As there is no consensus to remove it, and so—by policy, as outlined above—it remains for the time being, pending your next steps at wp:dispute resolution. Many options there. Merely insisting here would be wp:disruptive to this talk page, as in wp:NOTGETTINGIT - DVdm (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In accordance with WP:Verifiability you have been asked a number of times for a source that supports your point of view. You have not provided one. I have searched with Google for 'scientific consensus' and what I have seen is basically what is here and nothing like what you say. You have just gone on and on insisting you are right without the basic evidence needed in Wikipedia. I agree that WP:NOTGETTINGIT covers this and that your actions constitute disruption. Dmcq (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I concur with both of you, particularly re "disruptive". This editor is quite clueless as to WP standards and process ("As I object to the reference, there is no longer a consensus to keep it"), yet would appoint himself as an arbiter of those standards. As this discussion is not going anywhere useful (and unlikely to) we need an uninvolved editor to close it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm obviously late to this party, but I want to add one more voice to saying that the proposed addition is a bad idea. In fact, even in the existing lead sentence, "judgment" is more to the point than "opinion" is. In other words, scientists assessing a scientific consensus are expected to set aside their personal opinions in deference to the preponderance of experimental observations. And scientific evidence is absolutely something that "exists". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a blog for presenting either your opinion or arguments against it. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. 2600:8802:5913:1700:A1B4:5D50:CB6E:8C2C (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: a wp:DRN request was filed (without notice), and closed (without action). - DVdm (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

scientific consensus on Global Warming?
I note that this whole talk page is fascinating meaty stuff. For example I see the debate about whether evolution is 'scientific consensus', which apparently, is not obvious to all. I have a similar question about Global Warming. Wikipedia has several articles insisting upon the 'scientific consensus' on the issue. This one includes this:

'For example, the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases'

There is also an article on 'scientific opinion on climate change':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

My own opinion about climate change isn't my point, here. My point is that I'm intrigued by the concept of 'scientific consensus', and if it's relevant, policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change”. I hesitate before assertions such as that the vast majority of Americans have no clue what the scientific consensus on climate change is. Perception of scientific consensus, maybe it's a “gateway belief” to support for public action on climate change. The more one perceives there to be a scientific consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change, the more likely they are to believe that it is real and worrisome. Have we decided, as it were, I mean, is Wikipedia sold, on the notion that contrarian claims that there is no such consensus are clearly misleading. I've seen that the article I linked above, discusses semantic analyses of abstracts from scientific, peer-reviewed papers on global warming. Maybe this is impressive and convincing. But how impressive and convincing would it have to be? In the end, a minority rejects the attribution of global warming to human activities. Sure, a vast majority endorse this assumption. But what if I say that 'scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming has been growing'? Doesn't that imply, then, that there is room to grow?

Climate science is a highly politicized science. The issue they are dealing with is clearly political in nature. And I think it easy to speculate that the perception of scientific consensus adds to the credibility of a message substantially. So okay, maybe this is the reason, why many contrarians try to maintain the impression that there is no scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. But have we decided -- has Wikipedia settled the question, as to whether this strategy is deceptive? I also see the discussions on this page devaluating consensus as unscientific. Consider, minority scientists at their time that later became science heroes, such as Galilei or Darwin. Science isn’t democracy or consensus, the standard of truth is experiment. I also note how different papers endorse the consensus in different ways. Some are specific about quantifying the percentage of human contribution, others just say “humans are causing climate change” without specific quantification. And anyways, what’s the general reasoning of the other 3%? So to speak? Interesting question? Of course, often facts are not enough, especially when people are angry and emotional. But I am uncomfortable with this bandying about of this 'scientific consensus', where I can't even look at a list of prominent names of scientists upon which this authoritative 'consensus' is based. It's not that I personally believe or don't believe, it's just that the importance of the topic seems undeniable. We continue to read about it every day. The choice of topic is self-evident. But okay, apparently, there are many thousands of climate scientists in the world today. Like who? Who, for example, has scientific prestige? Who has prominence in the debate? Who is it, that Wikipedia is convinced, that only cranks and paid stooges could possibly disagree with them? I see a 'tension' between bandying about scientific consensus, on the one hand, and representation of both sides, on the other. While we are defining 'scientific consensus', have we defined 'appeals to authority'?

I was saying 'give me a name', and I can do that for skeptical sorts -- Lennart O. Bengtsson (author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as co-editor of several books). John R. Christy (author or co-author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters). Judith A. Curry (author or co-author of more than 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as the co-author or editor of three books). Richard S. Lindzen (author or co-author of nearly 250 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as author, co-author, or editor of several books, pamphlets, and technical reports). Nir J. Shaviv (author or co-author of more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters).

I imagine that this query belongs here, but maybe there is a better place. I put it here, because I'm really not looking to debate 'climate change', per se, I worry about what is 'scientific consensus' -- this article does, though, seem central to the decisions being made in all the climate change articles. DanLanglois (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It isn't Wikipedia's job to decide on the truth of anything, editors should just follow the Wikipedia policies for which there is a summary of the most pertinent ones at WP:5P. I think the most relevant policy that applies in what you're talking about are WP:Verifiability, in particular the content should be cited to reliable sources. As it says there 'If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.' Climate change has lots of good academic and peer reviewed sources and they say that the scientific opinion on climate change is that there is a consensus as it says in that article. You seem to have gone to the trouble of finding some names, if you want more thee's a list at List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Try finding any that have said anything that has passed peer review about this, and as Lennart Bengtsson said even after that incident "I do not believe there is any systematic 'cover-up' of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being 'deliberately suppressed', as the Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views". Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is the current so-called modern mechanistic scientific the only method accepted by the scientific community. All that matters is "knowing things as they are". A high school mathematics student is convinced that the logarithm of a negative number is not defined. But he is unaware that there exist solutions in the field of complex numbers. log(-1)= i*pi(2k + 1), where k=0,1,2,3,...

If the student days there is nothing beyond real numbers, and maintains that what he cannot understand, no one can know, then is he wise? The modern scientists are in the same boat. Polytope 4D (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:FORUM. Please go somewhere else for musing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Examples of Prominent Failures of "Scientific Consensus"
It seems to me that a fair presentation of this topic should include material that provides a moderating effect to accurately represent this topic.

Scientific consensus has failed many times in the past...and even in current times. In some cases it has hampered the progress of science, while in other cases it was merely a step on the path to newer findings.

For that reason, I believe a section should be added to give examples of scientific consensus in a negative context. Perhaps a table of examples would be useful for this purpose.

The positive context of scientific consensus is only valid until the next discovery that invalidates the consensus opinion. Science is like that. It never stands still. We should never associate the scientific consensus with absolute truth. It is only the "truth of the moment" based upon the opinion of a majority of experts, as surveyed. (And, in fact, may not be accurate at all, depending upon the methodology of the survey.)

Perhaps there should be a distinction as well between formal and informal consensus surveys, identifying the positive and negative aspects of each.

What are your thoughts? JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources explicitly mentioning scientific consensus in that context? If not, we can stop right here becaue of WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)