Talk:Scientific consensus/Archive 1

Michael Crichton quote

 * Science fiction author and film producer Michael Crichton maintains that the concept of scientific consensus is susceptible to abuse:

I have to admit, references to Michael Crichton as a reliable source of information on problems with scientific philosophy strike me as highly dubious at best, breathtaking ignorance at worst. The article seems to focus on criticisms of scienfitic consensus for the purposes of attacking climate change scientific consensus rather than making any sort of attempt to describe what scientific consensus actually is and what it means. Quotes from more reputable sources, such as from the field of scientific philosophy, shold be used. --Axon 16:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Agreed. AFAIK, Ed Poor was looking for a quote and... err, wasn't too careful about where he got it from. Why not re-write the whole thing?

I'd love to but I just don't know enough about the subject matter. Marked as a stub for future expansion and I'll try to expand the article when I get time. In the meantime feel free to edit it --Axon 16:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)) OK. Emboldened by this, I shall remove MC.

Probably for the best: quotations from Crichton don't really help the anti-climate change lobby anymore than they damage the pro- lobby. I forsee a lot of problems with this page. A quick google for "scienfitic consensus" reveals many anti-climate control pages criticising The Consensus. --Axon 17:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is the "consensus"?
Here are my thoughts on the definition of scientific consensus:


 * Scientific consensus is agreement among scientists that a given hypothesis or theory is true.

Surely SC is more than this. A better (though by no means final) definition:


 * Scientific consensus is the agreement within a scientific field that a set of hypotheses are correct, reached through a process of experimentation through the application of scientific method and peer review.

I'm not sure about the "a set of hypotheses are correct" part: the consensus is the collection of hypothesis that are deemed likeliest to be correct, i.e. fit the evidence best.

This article attempts to describe the reluctance to accept new ideas by the consensus as a negative thing, ignoring the fact that science is all about resistance to ideas. Skepticism to new ideas until they are proved "true" is, perhaps, the defining quality of Science. Other philosophies (such as theism) may dispute this methodology. This is seperate to the criticism levied here which implies that this reluctance to accept new ideas is a form of prejudice on the part of the scientific community.

In fact, one wonders if the other articles on the scientific method aren't sufficient: surely the consensus is only those hypothesis that have passed review and independent experimentation rather than the monolithic belief system the article seems to suggest it is. Most scientists don't "believe" in "The Consensus": they merely hold that the consensus is the likeliest explanation given the evidence in their own specific fields.

When people refer to the "consensus" do they actually mean the scientific method and the scientific community which, together, could form what is commonly thought to be the "consensus"? Things get complicated here because the hypothesis exist independantly to the scienfitic community. I think the problem here is that critics tend to lump scientists into a single group under the term "scienfitic community" so as to better create accusations of eliteness and detachment from "reality". --Axon 17:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The [http://www.kmbook.com/science.htm Role Of Science In Knowledge Creation: A Philosophy Of Science Perspective] seems to contain a lot of useful information. The article Empirical method also seems linked to our topic here. --Axon 12:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Precautionary Principal
What does the precautionary principal have to do with scientific consensus? Does this have some significance that I'm missing? --Axon 18:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, there's an idea amoung environmentalists that if something MIGHT be dangerous, they shouldn't wait for scientific consensus to develop about whether it really is dangerous, but immediately go ahead and ban it. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 18:36, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Earlier versions were more clear about the PP.


 * I think the link between SC and the PP isn't quite as explicit: actually the PP states that when the threat of catastrophy is so great, such as with catastrophic climate change, action should be taken to avoid disaster before before scientific evidence exists that an actual threat is imminent (ahem, just like the pre-emptive war tactic adopted by neo-conservatives, but nevermind). As such, the PP is linked to a variety of topics but more closely links with environmentalism (who are or were it's chief proponents). Certainly I think the argument for including a link to it in the opening paragraph of this article is weak. Also, SC is linked to a variety of other subjects which have not been linked to in the "See Also" section.


 * In my time (long ago) at Everything2.com there was a tactic called "soft linking". When a user clicks through from one page to another it creates a soft link. These soft links are displayed in order of popularity at the bottom of the page. It was a common tactic to affect the bias of pages by soft linking to provactive pages to explicitly delcare bias (sort of like Google bombing). If I were a cynical I'd say a similar tactic was being employed here. --Axon 10:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forming consensus
The Scientific consensus and Paradigm shift articles are related. Perhaps we could agree on how to explain the process whereby scientific consensus on an issue forms. Then in a related section or article, we could discuss how a theory is attacked or defended and (if it wasn't totally correct) is ultimately amended. Thomas Kuhn wrote about this. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 20:13, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that both articles should complement each other. I would, however, argue that the paradigm shift article seems to cover this material. Examples of shifts in paradigm (oh how I hate that awful word) more properly belong there. --Axon 10:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert
User:FactionofReds has made a unilateral deletion of a significant amount of the text in this page, including the categories. This edit should either be rolled back or the original text restored.

My version
(William M. Connolley 22:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I've had a go at producing a version I'm happy with. Maybe others will be too. I went back a few versions and including some changes, and then had a major hack. So if I've cut your favourite bit out, my apologies.

I have deliberately tried to de-emphasise global warming. If the article is to be credible, it should really about SC *not* a rehash of the GW wars. Google, BTW, gives 56,800 hits for SC-GW, and 86,000 for just SC. Many (most? all?) of the SC+GW hits are from the skeptics with the there-is-no-sci-cons-on-gw.


 * Yes, this issue is an edit war waiting to happen. Best to step carefully.


 * Just read the article entitled Scientific consensus on global warming, which starts with the rather dubious line "Scientific consensus on global warming has been claimed by environmentalists, socialists". This article also needs considerable work and I have marked is as a stub accordingly.


 * We have a decision here: do we merge the content from "Scientific consensus on global warming" into some sort of "climate change controversy" section here or do we split our efforts on two articles and move all the climate change content into "Scientific consensus on global warming"? --Axon 10:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Axon, I created the Scientific consensus on global warming article a day or two ago. I started it by googling some quotations and pasting them in. I think it's a key part of the Global warming controversy article, but I've often found that it's easier to add new content on a controversial topic by creating a "sidebare" article first.


 * After the dust settles, and contributors agree that the sidebare is accurate and unbiased, it's usually pretty easy to merge it into the larger article. Or, it's clear that it can and should stand on its own.


 * This strategy worked very well on Augusto Pinochet. A terrible edit war, involving multiple admins (how shocking!) was dragging on for several weeks. Then I had the bright idea of moving the most controversial part into an article of its own. Everything stabilized in less than 10 days. Other contributors who had apparently been watching from the sidelines came in and started supplying information the rest of us didn't have.


 * Now the History of Chile series is well-balanced and includes both the pro-coup and anti-coup viewpoints in such a way that both socialists and anti-communists deem to be both accurate and unbiased. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:05, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed, I can see what you are trying to achieve by keeping your edits to a seperate page for possible merging later, or moving the essays on the controversy to a seperate page. The problem is that your edits consist of a lot of controversial material that emphasises the anti-climate change lobby's perspective without making any balanced attempt to explore the opposing view. Also, as I pointed out on the talk for that page, the article seems to be a copy of a similar article and material seems to be repeated from there for no obvious benefit.


 * Also, I'm unsure if these contributions are helpful because, already, considerable work is required to balance the article while those of us on this page are trying to explore what scientific consensus actually is. I'm not even sure the term has any official scientific and/or philosophical definition.


 * To the cynical eye it would seem that, by spreading bias out across multiple articles as much as possible, it makes the task of attaining neutrality harder by pushing up the cost of editing all these articles. I agree that a seperate page to describe controversies can be a useful tactic, but at the moment all it seems to be doing is creating a lot of POV stubs. For example, global warming alarmist is itself a POV term and would probably only be used by opponents. I'm uncovering more these anti-global warming stubs all over Wikipedia. Consolidating them will be a gargantuan task in itself. --Axon 15:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please help me by listing them all. You are welcome to edit my public watchlist at user:Ed Poor/science. Or would you like me to make a user:Axon/warming page? --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:06, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm warm enough, ta. I'll try and compile a list here when I get the time. --Axon 16:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The list of controversial global warming topics include:


 * Global warming alarmist (Votes to be deleted).
 * Global warming alarmism (redirect to Global warming alarmist).
 * Alarmism (redirect to Global warming alarmist).
 * Environmental alarmism (redirect to Global warming alarmist).
 * Global warming skepticism (Should me merged with Global warming controversy).
 * Greenhouse effect (is there any need for both articles?).
 * Attribution of recent climate change (this could also be merged?).
 * Scientific opinion on climate change (another page linked to the overall topic).
 * Global warming survey (yet another page, very possibly could be merged).
 * global warming theory

I notice many are not listed under the climate change category. In fact, in-consistant usage of global warming vs. climate change is used: which is the more neutral term? --Axon 12:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's keep Global warming survey. It should be expanded to include every such survey we can find: both of scientists and non-scientist.

Scientific opinion on climate change should merge with global warming survey if it's of the "yes I agree or no I don't" type. But if any scientists actually has anything scientific to say it should go in global warming.

By the way, I don't like the term "climate change" because that is way too general. It can include historical periods of cooling like the ice ages.

The Greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon and is not controversial (in and of itself). It's only the "enhanced greenhouse effect" of the global warming theory that is at issue: will CO2 emissions make the earth's air too hot?

I agree that Global warming skepticism should me merged with Global warming controversy, but the scientific objections should be merged with global warming theory.

Dr. C. seems to think that the world's scientists have proven (a) that the atmosphere is heating up too much and (b) that emissions of CO2 et al. are responsible. I wish he would stop deleting info from other scientists who disagree with him.

Moreover, the Wikipedia standards do NOT exalt "peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals" as the ultimate authority.

And anyone who's studied the history of sciences such as astronomy or medicine can think of several major examples of pioneering work being dismissed or suppressed. Pasteur and Lister may be household words now (pasteurization of milk, Listerine mouthwash]], but the scientific establishment made scant effort to duplicate their results, let alone understand them.

I've gone easy on William because he's such a nice guy, but the articles have suffered from a lack of balance. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:25, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * The above is a bit confusing: it seems there are three types of article here:


 * Descriptive: they simply describe the phenomena in question without going into detail regarding any controversies, such as Greenhouse effect annd global warming. There is only one of these per topic and this is as it should be.


 * Explainative: they explain the positions of various groups, for example (Scientific opinion on climate change, Global warming controversy, Global warming skepticism. There should possibly be either a) one per position (skeptic, environmentalist and/or scientific?) or b) one article for all sides of the argument The "flammable" material should possibly be moved into these sections (although the topic of what constitutes flammable or not is probably flammable in and of itself).


 * Stubs which are delete-worthy, most of which have already been highlighted and dealt with appropriately.


 * To be honest, I don't really want to get embroiled in a massive edits on the subject of global warming, I'm personally more interested in this article. I leave the consolidation of the above articles as an exercise to others. I think it would nice to see at most two or three articles on the subject of global warming for the reasons mentioned before.


 * My original point is that there is enough articles on the subject of global warming already in Wikipedia and I would like to move discussion of these topics to these pages. Discussion of global warming should be almost exclusively in the articles on global warming so as to ease the monitoring and ability to balance these articles rather that spread out over multiple articles, such as in scientific consensus. I think a paragraph here mentioning the possiblity of using consensus for political purposes and a link pointing to articles describing such controversies (such as with global warming) is sufficient.


 * And anyone who's studied the history of sciences such as astronomy or medicine can think of several major examples of pioneering work being dismissed or suppressed. And anyone who's studied the history of sciences such as astronomy or medicine can think of several major examples of pioneering work being dismissed or suppressed.


 * If you could post some links to some (reputable) sources on these histories that would be of enormous help in the drafting of this article. --Axon 15:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Outside world

 * Within science, the mechanism for forming and describing consensus is the normal process of conferences, teaching and publication. However, there is no particular mechanism for signalling the state of consensus to the "outside world".

I removed this section because I'm not really sure what it is saying: surely the various journals, conferences and leccutres are the "particular mechanism" by which consensus is communicted to the outside world? --Axon 17:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 18:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Ah... I was going to violently object to your removing this... but lets talk about it. Obviously I was unclear. Journals/conf/etc aren't read or attended by the outside world. Nor is there usually any means of "integrating" these to form a balance of the body of opinion. If you read enough journals, attend confs, talk to colleagues, you get a sense of where the science lies. But the outside world does none of this.


 * Sorry, maybe I deleted this in haste. I disagree that there is no mechanism to communicate ideas to the lay person. Its true the the average person on the street could understand a typical scientific paper (although as you said, with time and effort they could come to understand such works so on emight argue that no such effort to explain ones work simplistically is required). But, it is also true that there exists a journalistic medium surrounding science that carries out the work of re-writing papers and lectures in an understandable form and publishing this material in newspapers and popular science magazines (such New Scientist and Scientific American). --Axon 10:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the whole concept of consensus is a political one, and it's not really part of science. I can't imagine a particle physics deciding to go along with other physicists just for the sake of harmony. He'd rather try an experiment himself, and if he can't duplicate the results he'll say so. And anyone with a shred of decent intellectual honesty would say, by golly, I guess this is an irreproducible result so maybe it's not true -- even if I WANT it to be!


 * Consensus is really a political concept. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 20:37, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Wrong. On all counts. No one is saying that consensus should prevent sci work. Just that in some disciplines there *is* consensus. That there is consensus around QM, or GR, is not political.


 * I am in agreement with William - there is enough evidence that the term consensus can be used in a neutral fashion. As he points out, what is political about QM and GR? Also, not sure what this has to do with communication of scientific consensus to the general populace. --Axon 10:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page should be sent to VfD
The current page is nothing but uncited and undocumented personal research, in my opinion. :) I would agree that parts of this current page coincide with my own personal research.  :))  But other parts contradict my own personal research.  8((  Since the current page gives me not a single citation to a scholarly publication that even uses the term "scientific consensus," I am tempted to cite this page to VfD as a Neologism.  :)  However, if I scan PubMed to see if scholars actually use the term at all, I find that the term is not used by scientists to describe the scientific method. So the paragraph that begins "Formerly, there was a consensus that Newtonian gravity . . ." should be deleted because that paradigm shift had nothing to do with "scientific consensus" but rather to do with scientific method. That is, by my experience of the scientific method, the process consists of developing some physical or mathematical demonstration of what is going on that is so clear that it convinces the new generation of scientists as they learn their way through all the possible explanations developed by their forebears. That is, in the scientific method, the driving force is the convincing quality of the demonstration which has nothing to do with consensus. In contrast, the term "scientific consensus" is used, for example, to describe the pseudoscience political process by which the Bush Administration organizes political appointments and funding to promote superstition. !ÔÔ! For all of the above reasons, I suggest that we have done enough personal research on the Scientific consensus page. Could we begin to cite to actual published scholars in this page? For example, we need to find some History of science scholar who actually uses this pseudoscience term "Scientific consensus." I understand that the term "scientific consensus" is used in the popular press of sound bites. But we need to find an actual scholar who analyzes the political forces that use the term "scientific consensus" to promote their political agenda. Apparently, the term "scientific consensus" has nothing to do with science. ---Rednblu | Talk 12:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As one of the contributors to this page, I would agree with much of your analysis: it is very difficult to uncover any definitive definition of scientific consensus and I would agree that it probably doesn't have a place in the description of Science. The only thing I would mention is that perhaps it is a term used in the Philosophy of Science, but I am by no means an expert. The term certainly gets used a lot in the media. --Axon 10:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 11:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I don't know if it helps, but if you look at the very early history of this page you'll see it was essentially created by Ed Poor to hold a quote from Michael Crichton that attacked global warming. So its beginnings were definitely very poor (ho ho). I don't object to you sending it to VFD but would probably vote against, because... well, firstly the page is much better now. Secondly, I think many of your arguments are invalid. Because... well, whether or not the term "sci cons" is much used, the *concept* clearly exists. You looked to see if the term was used by scientists and found it wasn't: but thats irrelevant: its meta-science, not science; you would find it used by historians/sociologists of science, not scientists, if anywhere. You say: my experience of the scientific method, the process consists of... which is fine, but again irrelevant. In sci conc we're not talking about anything with much releveance to how science is done or developed, but more with how its presented to the outside world, and the very vague process of how consensus is formed/communicated. Oh, and RnB says Apparently, the term "scientific consensus" has nothing to do with scientific method.. (gurk: I read too quickly: RnB had written sci meth|sci, which I think goes to far). Well yes: I agree (with slight caveats because it does have a very slight something to do; it will affect the environment in which young scientists are formed, for example) but that doesn't say anything about the validity of this page. (and ps: when I last looked SM was a mess).

The problem I had with this page is that, other than a few anti- and pro- global warming blogs out there, there is actually very little respectable source material on the subject of "scientific consensus" out there, what it is exactly, how it is defined, how it should be used, etc. If it has any definition at all it would seem to exist outside of the normal academic fields --Axon 11:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you both for examining my concerns. You have set me to thinking. 8)) I am looking for a scholar's analysis of the term. Maybe some political scientist has looked at it. :))


 * Whatever you can turn up on this subject would be most useful. My attempts to research it have hit a brick wall. If there any philosophy of science students out there, please help. --Axon 11:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV: scientific consensus is not the same thing as the scientific truth
This article is POV because it tries to pretend that the consensus of scientists can be used as a scientific argument for the validity of a theory - which is nonsense. I've added the POV tag. --Lumidek 23:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't really see where it reads that. If anything, the article makes little or no mention of how scientific consensus is used, and merely attempts to describe it and the philosophy of science issues surrounding it in a neutral fashion. Other than simply slapping a dispute template on the article, what evidence and reasons do you have for finding parts of this article to be "nonsense"?


 * If you are looking to "prove" and state as fact the controversial thesis that a theory is not validated by scientific consensus then, not only are you on the wrong page, but on the wrong web site. I think controversies on this subject a better left for pages where the controversy can be fully explored, hence my linking to the Global warming controversy and Evolution pages. See the above discussion for a call for credible links describing what SC is, or dealing with the issues of SC especially from a Philsophy of Sciene perspective. Do you yourself have any knowledge of Philosophy of Science or it's methodology? --Axon 02:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Feyerabend
I'm not sure why Feyerabend was linked to on this page: what associations does he have with the topic of SC --Axon 18:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inertia and Lomborg
(William M. Connolley 18:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I see we have an some text apparently moved from CS. Oh great. I dislike it. But in an effort to avoid yet more wars, I'll discuss it here first:


 * The skep env isn't generally considered to be scientific research, so isn't a good example
 * If it is accepted as an example, then it appears to be a counterexample: a book rejecting the consensus has found far more fame, attention and adulation than any number of book supporting the consensus.

So if it stays, the sense should be inverted.


 * I think "isn't generally considered to be scientific research" is sort of the point of what people mean when they say the work is ridiculed. Selling a lot of books is not the same as work being accepted or openly discussed among the scientific body of a particular field.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 19:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would like to see the section include more examples so that an understanding of the inertia of science can be gained by looking somewhere between all the examples given (and thus focus is not on a particular one, since clearly any single example will be disapproved of by some group). So if someone else can think of more examples, please add them.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 19:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)) The reason that the DCSD didn't consider it to be objectively scientific misconduct (I forget the exact wording) was that it didn't come under the category of science. I haven't seen Lomborg disputing that, though he may have done so secretly :-). You didn't respond to my second point.


 * The initial ruling was that Lomborg "acted contrary to good scientific practice", but that no charges would be pressed. Lomborg did file a dispute, and it was ruled that the DCSD committed procedural errors in its decision, so it was asked to reassess the case.  The DCSD then dismissed his dispute because the initial charges had been dropped, so it was ruled that there was no basis for his dispute.  The Ministry of Science then declared the initial DCSD decision invalid.  This case has also triggered a Ministry of Science review of the DCSD (or UVVU as they prefer to call it), its policies, and its procedures.      &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 22:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding point 2: "Selling a lot of books is not the same as work being accepted or openly discussed among the scientific body of a particular field."     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 22:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 12:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Please don't try to present the ministry as somehow unbiased. Its part of the govt that appointed Lomborg - they had a clear interest in vindicating him.

I say delete the Lomborg example. He's not a scientist and the book is not scientific. Bad example and out of place. Surely there is a better example if we need one. This book should be subtitled how to lie with statistics. (hmm...does Wikipedia have an article about that book? How to Lie With Statistics, guess not :-). -Vsmith 02:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Dr. Lomborg is a statistics professor who, among other things, studies the use of statistics in environmental science. Are you implying statisticians have no role in the scientific process??     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 08:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 12:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Lomborgs biog is here: http://www.lomborg.com/biograph.htm. He is assoc prof of stats.

(William M. Connolley 12:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I've removed the Lomborg example. I think it would be better inverted - proof that opposing the consensus gets you more notice than supporting it - but in the interests of peace I've simply removed it.


 * I've replaced the Lomborg example. It is a valid example of the sort of hostility shown to those who oppose the "orthodox" view.--JonGwynne 02:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest reading what you are wiping out with your POV edits JG. I have made some additional changes including examples more relevant than the as yet disputed Lomberg one with a reference to the Lomberg article for more info on the controversy there only to have it summarily wiped out by JG. I have reinstated my changes. Let's try to be reasonable here. -Vsmith 18:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, when I originally edited WMC's mods, they were the most recent. I didn't mean to wipe out your welcome additions.  However, I do think you're a little off the mark on the Lomborg section so I'll go fix that up.--JonGwynne 19:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How disappointing: I go away from Wikipedia only to return and discover that, rather than actually exploring the concept of "scientific consensus" or posting helpful and authorative links on the subject, more anti-GW screed has been added.


 * Another more recent example of this is the controversial political scientist and environmental statistician Bjørn Lomborg.

Let me just state again for the record, given the other, more non-controversial examples of the inertia of scientific consensus, why do we need to cite the highly controversial example of Lomborg? As I have stated many times before, all discussion of the controveries of GW more properly belongs on the Global warming controversy page where it can be more properly monitored for balance - this is just another example of the technique I call Spreading the NPOV. It is for this reason I would like to see this section merged with that page or the Lomboz page. It is itself controversial whether the rejection of Lomboz's work is due to scientific consensus.


 * 'In some cases, those who question the current paradigm are heavily criticized or ridiculed for their assessments.''

What evidence is there for the above? --Axon 17:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, as you might note we have aquired a Lomborg superfan here. I just deleted much of the Lomberg and GW controversy stuff again, and took out the ridiculed from the first of the section. I expect our superfan will be back to revert my changes. -Vsmith 21:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Seriously, Vsmith, on what planet is reverting the article to say: "Lomborg's book is wrong and biased" at all NPOV?? How many times has that revert been made now?  There's no way that could at all be possibly considered NPOV under any interpretation whatsoever.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 10:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's not quote out of context. The statement reads: Many scientists working in the fields discussed in the book strongly questioned the interpretations presented by Lomborg and pointed out numerous significant errors and bias in the book. Perhaps we should quote from the sources this comes from, the many scientists part is kind of weasely. But, rather than a long discussion of that controversy I would recommend removal of the reference to Lomberg from this article. Doesn't really fit as an example anyway. -Vsmith 12:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "pointed out numerous significant errors and bias in the book" is directly saying that there ARE numerous significant errors and bias in the book, and that the subject of the sentence simply came along and showed where they are. This is POV, because it's directly saying there are errors and bias in the book.  I surely hope you could see how that is overwhelmingly strong POV.  I don't even care one bit about the Lomborg book, I just don't like to see things written like that on Wikipedia.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 19:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It might be appropriate to remove the Lomborg example if most people thought it was "insignificant" when describing the interaction of scientific consensus. It would NOT be appropriate to remove the Lomborg example just for thinking the book is wrong, as clearly by definition a book which challenges the consensus is GOING to be thought wrong by a majority, yet there is still value in describing this interaction.  If you think you can find other more clear or significant examples of resistance to consensus challenging, then feel free to add a few and then we can debate which ones are most descriptive.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 19:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you take the time to read the detailed critiques given on the Sci Am site as well as others, you will see that the errors and bias have been well documented. I don't think this is the place to ppost a number of those examples to back up my statement that you object to. Much better to remove the ref to Lomborg from this article as it is not a good example and remains too controverial. I don't see you criticizing JG's edits for being POV, surely you don't find his edits all NPOV? Vsmith 16:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't find every word of JG's edits to be NPOV, but it's a step up from calling an entire body of work "wrong". I don't care if you DO document other people who think it's wrong, that doesn't mean you just say the entire work is a "significant error".  You can say, "Those views are not supported by the majority" or "the general consensus of climatologists disagrees" or "It is widely disputed" (provided those statements can be documented) or any number of similar things which would be far better than flat out saying it's wrong, in error, or biased.  As for JG's edits, I think the word "orthodox" is a poor choice of words because it can carry negative connotations, and this does not keep a NPOV tone to the statements.  I think the attempts to discredit Lomborg are fairly well documented, given the DCSD case and its resulting conflict, but I think perhaps using "discredit" in that tone in that sentence may be considered POV by some, since the word "discredit" is more often used by supporters of the people being discredited.  So in the interest of maximizing NPOV, I would take the JG version and rephrase the portions which use words like "orthodox" and "discredit", so that the information and description are still there, but with a less loaded "this is what happened" description.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 04:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue here isn't about whether Lomboz is right or wrong, or even whether he is controversial or not. The issue is whether Lomboz belongs on this page. As I understand it, Lomboz's work deals specifically with global warming and not much else. The fact that it even relates to scientific consensus - specifically, the opinion stated here as fact that Lomboz's findings have been rejected because they go against scientific consensus - is itelf controversial. As I have advocated before, the content thus belongs more properly in global warming controversy.


 * This page, indeed this very section already contains multiple, non-controversial examples of scientific consensus (continental drift, symbiogenesis, etc.). What is more, discussion of the controversial subject of global warming should be kept on a few pages at most, and more properly a single page, so as it can be closely monitored (and to fire wall the the resulting flame wars to as fewer pages as possible).


 * I would also like to point out that little work has been done on this page to explore what scientific consensus actually is, and far too much work has been done trying to link it to the issue of scientific consensus. Do we have any clear idea about where the term comes from? Who uses? Which field of study does it belong to? Does a consensus apply to all science, or only specific fields? Does anyone have any authorative links on this subject?


 * Finally, the heading of this section is itself POV with it's implicit assumption that ideas are rejected through inertia - ie. lazy thinking - rather than the pro-active rejection of new ideas necesary for any field of intellectual inquiry. --Axon 11:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's always going to be the case that when something is rejected which is counter to the scientific consensus, those supporting the consensus will say it's rejected because it's wrong, and those questioning the consensus will say it's rejected because it goes against the consensus. The only way you'll find examples that DON'T have this problem is in historical examples where the consensus has already changed, so people can discuss the situation without getting personally involved.  For some reason, there always seem to be a lot of people who make the assumption that the current scientific consensus is always correct, and only in the past are there cases where the scientific consensus was wrong, and then they always give the consensus credit for having come around to the right answer in the end.  But, clearly if at any point in time we can look back in the past and find examples where the scientific consensus actively resisted ideas of worth, then it would be a bit naive to keep making the assumption that it no longer happens.  Yet still, this assumption keeps getting made.  I think this phenomenon is an important part of scientific consensus and worthy of description, and it's in fact part of what this inertia section is trying to get at.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 12:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above would certainly be worthy of note, provided adequate and authorative evidence is provided to back it up. However, what I fear you are talking about is not scientific consensus but more specifically the controversy surrounding global warming, discussion of which will always belong more properly on that page or the global warming controversy page, not only for reasons of accuracy - itself controversial - but for ensuring a discussion of scientific consunsus is carried out on this page without it being swamped by global warming screed.

I also note that we are focussing purely on why scientific consensus is "wrong" or "right" - whatever that means - without anyone performing a proper discussion of what scientific discussion actually is first! Does anyone have an comments on my other remarks above? Or is this page simply going to become another addundum to the global warming articles? --Axon 12:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed controversial and POV bit about Lomborg. It doesn't fit here - poor example. And it is material directly copied from the consensus science article and thus duplicative. Vsmith 16:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment/JonGwynne
(William M. Connolley 23:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You are invited to view Requests for comment/JonGwynne and comment thereon.

A personal essay:

Philosophy
The issue of consensus is important in the Philosophy of science. The view that the goal of science is the creation of such a consensus holds that the scientist is a skeptic using his or her analytical and critical faculties to evaluate all evidence presented before delivering an opinion. Unlike other forms of knowledge, scientific knowledge consists of messages that are consensible - that is they can be mutually understood so that they can be evaluated for agreement or dissent and have the possibility of becoming part of the consensus. Thus, consensibility is a pre-requisite for consensuality.

Science as dissension
An alternative view to consensual science is dissension science - that is science is the process of creating new ideas which are then tested. In this view the scientists is a explorative individual who, through the use of reason and imagination, postulates a hypothesis

Whilst both views of science are debated, there exists the possibility the truth lies somewhere in between.

Non-scientific dissent
Scientific consensus is sometimes used in non-scientific political debates in public forums as a mean of settling arguments or disputing received wisdom. Various non-scientists dispute consensus itself and express dissent on other grounds. For examples of public debates where scientific consensus has featured please see Global warming controversy and Evolution.

I cut the 3 sections above, because it sounds like some Wikipedian's personal attempt to justify the mainstream of environmental or anti-Creationist thought as objective reasoning. This obscures the fact that there is a dispute.

I would like the topic of "scientific consensus" to represent all views fairly, in accordance with Wikipedia policy as set forth by co-founder Larry Sanger.

Also, it may be useful to distinguish between:


 * cases where 95% or more of scientists agree about something; and,
 * cases where non-scientists such as politicians and activists claim there is a "scientific consensus" about something, to justify a policy they are pursuing

Statements by prominent scientific bodies, as well as surveys of scientists in various fields, would clearly be relevant here.

Note, however, that interested parties may object to having their claims of consensus questioned and thus seek to censor Wikipedia articles -- which might require arbcom action to preserve NPOV. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 16:38, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Relevance to public policy
Most people agree with the following:


 * If there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about a matter, then we should conform policy to that viewpoint.

However, not all people agree with what has become the most common variation of this:


 * 1) If there is scientific consensus on a matter, this means that there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about it
 * 2) If there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about a matter, then we should conform policy to that viewpoint.
 * 3) Therefore, if there is scientific consensus on a matter, then we should policy to the consensus.

I regret to say that it has taken me three years to realize that this kind of thinking is what makes the claims of "scientific consensus" on global warming such a big deal.

Everyone agrees we should rely on the science. But we would need two agree on both of the following to agree about global warming:
 * that there is scientific consensus on global warming; and,
 * that scientific consensus implies reliable science

I rush to add that opinion polls show that the American public in general has increasingly come to believe that there is a scientific consensus (or near-unanimity of scientific opinion) on global warming. I think the accuracy of these polls is beyond question.

What makes die-hards like me so stubborn is that we're not convinced that 67% of scientists or even 95% of scientists is a large enough majority. For me, at least, disagreement by as many as 5% or 10% is enough for me to want to double-check everything. Especially when I find that people like Al Gore have tried to suppress dissent by painting skeptics like Fred Singer as associated with Rev. Moon (an obvious nut case) or oil companies (clearly out for themselves). --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 17:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's definitely a critical nexus of the matter. Making claim #1, that "If there is scientific consensus on a matter, this means that there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about it" requires one to make the assumption that scientific consensus will always necessarilly reflect a reliable and accurate scientific viewpoint.  Both the history and the philosophy of science clearly urge caution about utilizing such a claim.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I am a scientist, and I believe quite firmly in the scientific method as a method of gaining understanding and knowledge about the world. But there's a world of difference between supporting the scientific method and thinking that the conclusions of all scientists, or even the majority of scientists, are true.  This seems to me like an argument formed as, "All people make mistakes and get things wrong, except scientsts."     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In order for the scientific method to actually function the way it's supposed to, all scientists have to actively question their own beliefs and assumptions when they are challenged. For science to correct itself with time, new theories which contradict existing accepted consensus need to be openly examined.  Yet there's clearly an inertial tendency which slows this, in preference of the preexisting beliefs and consensus of scientists.  Just look at the statements early founders such as Planck and Einstein made about quantum mechanics.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There's also a tendency for many scientists to do the same thing that all groups of humans are found to do, which is to conform. If you ask a group of people whether they think A or B is true, and a slight majority think A is true, then if you tell them all that a majority think A is true and then go around and ask them again, the majority which picks A will increase.  It's for these reasons that it's better to try to base policy on reliable scientific viewpoints than on scientific consensus.  The only trick then becomes figuring out what the reliable scientific viewpoints are.  One certain prerequisite for figuring out what the reliable scientific viewpoints are is to have all information available, whether it supports or contradicts the scientific consensus.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"should be"
The phrase "should be" does not belong on this article outside of quotation marks. Assessments of what "should" be are entirely personal perspective. To be encyclopedic and NPOV, we need to instead describe what is, and we can even describe the effects of those things. It is okay to say that careful evaluation of new research prevents science from diverging into error, but it is poor wording to say that this "should be" done. We instead need to take the more encyclopedic and detailed route and describe what the actual effects are of science doing otherwise. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 19:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I disagree with you.

Merge from consensus science
The result of the VfD on consensus science was, weakly, that it should be merged here. Anybody who feels able to do that is hereby invited to. dbenbenn | talk 00:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 09:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Note however there was strong opposition to the POV nature of some of that page. Please merge carefully, if at all. I would rather it had been deleted (well, I listed it).


 * I think the majority would probably prefer the two articles separate given their different scopes, if a poll were specifically conducted on the issue of merging. I'm not sure if it's quite correct to conclude a merge as the final result when the vast majority did not recommend merging.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 09:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at it again, you're probably right. "No consensus" would have been more accurate.  Anyway, what actually happens to it depends solely on what people here decide to do, regardless of what the poll indicated.  dbenbenn | talk 18:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If it is to be merged here, it should be into a distinct and separate section. The article as it is now is far less POV and objectionable than it was at the start so perhaps it should remain separate - it doesn't really fit here. If it must be merged, then junk science might be a better destination for it rather than here as that's what it is. -Vsmith 17:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You make a good point that it might fit better under junk science than here, seeing as how they are at least the same type of phenomenon. I just fear that categorizing it under junk science would perhaps be making too strong of a statement about consensus science, since junk science tends to imply the conclusions are definitively incorrect, while consensus science instead simply tends to criticize the methodology of drawing conclusions.  I think keeping the concepts distinct and separate yields the greatest potential for clarity in this case, and there's no better way to do that than keeping it in a separate article.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the view that "consensus science" is a kind of junk science should be attributed to an advocate - perhaps someone like Michael Crichton. Wikipedia shouldn't take a stand on this issue.

Even when I agree with a point of view, I often recognize that it's not Wikipedia's job to identify who is right in a dispute, but merely to describe the dispute fairly. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2005 (UTC)

Hijacked by POV Warriors
I'm delighted to see this page has become hijacked by the Anti-GW POV brigade. This article has become a nigh incomprehensible rant filled with spelling mistakes, gramatical errors and confusing citations. The only real content that wasn't original research and was cited using a real Philosphy of Science paper was deleted by Ed, for reasons best known to himself. One cannot help feel that people who are editing this page are disinterested in exploring SC as a concept, and more in pushing their agenda. The version of the article I wrote is still, by far, better than the version currently up by anyone's objective standards. This truly demonstrates the high levels of ignorance within Wikipedia which should be a repository of knowledge rather than propoganda. --Axon 11:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 22:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Is it really that bad? I'm generally seen as being quite "pro" GW (though I am of course scrupulously neutral) and it doesn't seem so terrible. I've made a few minor edits.


 * WMC sez: "I'm generally seen as being quite "pro" GW (though I am of course scrupulously neutral)"...    And here we thought all this time that William doesn't have a sense of humor.  ;->--JonGwynne 23:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 09:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) If you've got nothing useful to say, why not keep quiet, instead of stirring up trouble?


 * Ah, but I have a great deal to say which is useful, just because you don't like it doesn't mean you should be telling me to shut up. The idea that you consider yourself "scrupulously neutral" is too absurd not to draw satirical comment.  You are so obviously and clearly (even grotesquely) partisan that, like all zealots, you simply can't see it and that's what makes people like you dangerous.  You're like Thomas Penfield Jackson with regard to Microsoft.  You're so biased that you see your bias as neutrality and other people's actual neutrality as bias.  You know why the environmental movement is having such trouble?  It is because people like you are such easy targets for the opposition.  You are exasperating to pragmatic environmentalists like me because you're too blinded by your idealogy to see reason.--JonGwynne 13:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Axon, it does appear that there were some good elements in the older page. I made an attempt to reintegrate some of those elements with the current page.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 23:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Axon, sorry about unwarranted deletions. Please put back what I deleted (clearly marked as the point of view of the philosopher you had cited). I didn't object to the info being in the article but that it was presented as if it were self-evident (nothing is self-evident in philosophy) or as represented a standard operating procedure (nothing is that neat or honest in science).


 * The reason science works is that other scientists check up on your work; that is what keeps you honest. If you go around saying cell phones cause brain tumors, others will try to reproduce your results. When they fail, your results are junked and people keep using cell phones. (If enough of them were to succeed, then it would become common knowledge . . .) --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 14:43, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article has been hijacked by Kyoto activits, obviously. The climate change issue should be removed from the examples of "scientifc consensus" and replaced by a non-debatable example if we are to consider this an encyclopedic entry. There are plenty of possibilities (gravity being one). Although there is a mainstream opinion about climate change, it is far from being neutral for an encyclopedia to call consensus the actual mainstream opinion on climate change. There are plenty of contradictory opinions by scientifcs of various backgrounds and nationalities. The American Heritage Dictionnary defines consensus as "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole". I suggest careful reading of the reference to Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Ennemies that is cited below. I also suggest careful reading of Wiki's page on epistemology. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making
Removed the following for discussion:
 * Because decisions must sometimes be made before there is complete certainty, scientific consensus is sometimes affected more by the political decisions desired by the scientists in a particular field than by the certainty of the science in that field. This effect is sometimes referred to as a consensus science.

Vsmith 03:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1st: in science, complete certainty is non-existant.
 * 2nd: scientists are human (believe it or not :-) and not usually apolitical. And yes, at times their human and political foibles lead them to make non-scientific decisions and statements. Simply put scientists can also act as advocates. If in their advocacy they lean more on consensus than on evidence it needs pointing out and they should rightly be called on it. The phrase is sometimes affected more in the exerpt above appears to me rather a weasel phrase. If you can be more specific it might work better.
 * 3rd: the phrase This effect is sometimes referred to as a consensus science seems dubious to me - as is the consensus science article. The so-called effect is simply a scientist acting as a political animal. Agreed, that scientists when acting this way may and often do lean on their scientific credentials to give their political views more umph and they should be called on that also.
 * 4th: the insertion of this para just prior to the IPCC example seems inappropriate unless your POV is that it applies to said example, then it's just POV.


 * 1, The word "complete certainty" was following from the paragraph above which says "decisions must be made without complete certainty". Perhaps you will be happy if the word "complete" is removed from the included paragraph.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2, No, I cannot be more specific, because anything more specific would be disputed on the basis of its specificity. I do not believe it is a "weasel phrase", simply because it doesn't provide a convenient straw man.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3, Yes, we're all aware that you don't like the existence of the consensus science article. And yes, scientists should be called on the use of their scientific credentials when used to give their political views more umph.  In fact, this is what the term consensus science is used for.  You might personally like the term more if you weren't so focused on its use to describe climate research.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4, I paid no attention to the paragraph which followed, I was inserting it after the paragraph which preceded it, as it appropriately and logically follows from that paragraph. Upon more careful inspection, I think the IPCC/Kyoto paragraph is off-topic for that section (and far too specific for an article on scientific consensus, which is not really about climate change), so I will remove that paragraph instead.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The paragraph that followed was a specific example to show the inter-relationship between political need for action and scientific consensus in a field with obvious uncertainties. The union of politicians working with science specialists in the IPCC to attempt to find consensus and chart further research and possible courses of action is a most valid example.


 * I don't think specific examples are really necessary here, since the article is about scientific consensus. There's a lot to say about scientific consensus and the way it functions as a part of the philosophy and method of science without invoking specific controversial examples.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 14:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the consensus science article should be renamed consensus political action involving science or some such. I seem to recall that you said it wasn't science as did Crichton. -Vsmith 16:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Is "junk science" science? It has the word "science" in it, so do you find the term equally confusing?  Also, please leave your personal feelings about the existence of the consensus science article out of the editing of this page.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 14:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I'm supposed to leave my personal feelings about ... consensus science out.... Why should I? you edits appear to me to be mainly pushing your personal feelings about it. The phrase scientific consensus is sometimes affected more by the political decisions desired by the scientists in a particular field is just a weasel phrase without specific and substantinal instances in support. And as such has little meaning beyond your POV. We also don't need the sigh in the edit summary - it's a subtle insult and not conducive to civil discourse. Also, I don't find the consensus science concept as much confusing as a political garbage term for which some around here want to blame science. It's a term used by politicians, cause advocates, journalists, and disgruntled science fiction writers. -Vsmith 15:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The "sigh" is because it's quite frustrating to wake up every morning and see every contribution to a certain subset of articles reverted every single day. It's annoying and unproductive, and I would like people on this subset of articles to start working together rather than in constant opposition.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 17:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And I don't "blame science" for anything. I blame certain scientists for letting politics get in the WAY of science.  It's not a problem of science or of the scientific method, it's a problem of people.  And unfortunately, science must always be done by people, so these problems become part of science.  These problems manifest quite readily in the scientific consensus because while it might be nice if the consensus were always about the facts of the science, that's not how consensus is actually determined in practice.  Consensus comes about by the collective opinions of those working in a particular field, and thus it becomes a people problem, and psychology and politics become entangled.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 17:49, 23 February 2005 (UTC)

criticism
Vsmith reverted commenting: "remove rambling crit section - read the section: Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making first"


 * 1) that section does not criticize the notion of appeals to "scientific consensus." criticism of the concept itself is totally absent from the page.
 * 2) "rambling" is an issue for editing, not deletion.
 * 3) the section was an npov summary of a pov, with quotations from prominent individuals representing the pov. why is it inappropriate for a page about the idea they're criticizing?

why? Ungtss 16:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems to me to be an acceptable topic to touch on, but considering all the elements involved with scientific consensus, perhaps the section could be a little smaller. It seems there should still be a mention of it, though, since it was a prominent criticism about certain usage of scientific consensus.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 16:11, 21 February 2005 (UTC)

How about this:

Criticism of appeals to "scientific consensus"
While scientific consensus is considered by many to be a valid means of ascertaining the validity of a scientific assertion, others criticize the concept as an empty appeal to authority often symptomatic of a lack of merit. Karl Popper summarized this critique in The Open Society and its Enemies when he wrote, "I do not believe that success proves anything." Similarly, Michael Crichton argued against appeals to the "scientific community" or "consensus of scientists" in the Caltech Michelin Lecture entitled "Aliens Cause Global Warming"


 * 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.

Discussion
You could perhaps trim out the first paragraph on "I want to pause here and talk" (which is a bit wordy and epideictic), and leave the last two paragraphs as a more clear and concise expression of his views. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 16:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be an improvement. Not quite as POV pushy. I would like to see the Popper quote in context, don't have the book and it's been awhile. Also think the Crichton quote is a bit much (seems to be everyone's favorite around here :-) - yes he is a good writer of fiction and yes, he did give a speech with a doozey of a title, but his credentials in science are nowhere near to the proportion of fame he has both here and in the real world. So, maybe cut the length of the quote or better yet find more real scientist criticisms. Also note the criticism inherently built in to the sections Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making and Scientific consensus and the scientific minority. -Vsmith 17:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, please read the extended discussion of Crichton earlier on this talk page - to sum it up: Not acceptable :-) -Vsmith 01:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * i think the proposed edit is a good one -- so i'll make it -- as to the dialogue at the beginning of the page and your appeal for "real scientist criticisms," i think you've encapsulated the problem quite nicely. the quote is not admissible unless it comes from a "reputable source."  but who determines what sources are "reputable?"  why ... the "scientific consensus," of course!!! it doesn't matter if what crichton says make SENSE -- he doesn't have the proper CREDENTIALS, so he's out.  Ungtss 20:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)) But does what Crichton say make sense? I don't think it does.


 * Not that I speak for him, but I believe what Crichton was trying to say is that science is about fact, and consensus is about opinions, and therefore the scientific consensus is simply the opinions about the facts, which have nothing at all to do with the facts themselves. And while what he says is a simplification of the matter, it's certainly a point worthy of philosophical and practical consideration for anyone interested in making sure science works correctly.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 17:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Crichton is well represented in the consensus science article, where his quote fits better - don't need to duplicate here where it doesn't really apply. As for Popper, I tried a search on Amazon search wi/in the text feature and bound no match - so am quite dubious about it and the context. How about you provide us with the context of the quote and we'll see if it fits. I have become quite skeptical of people quoting out of context around here. The problem encapsulated: Tabloid journalism, etc. are not valid refs. -Vsmith 16:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * you're right -- consensus science does it better -- i didn't know that page existed. i'll delete the section here.  Ungtss 16:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)) OK, so its gone now. I'd like to record my doubts about the Popper quote and text around it. I'm doubtful that he was talking about consensus. I think he was just expressing his "falsifiability" views, but without a page # its rather hard to know. Also: no-one (well certainly not me) is saying "there is a consensus on this; thereofre this *proves* such-and-such". This is a misunderstanding. The point is, that when decisions have to be made about what to do, *then* you need to look at the consensus, if it exists in a given area.


 * Actually, you, and others, say all the time around here that no one should question the current consensus,


 * (William M. Connolley 20:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)) No, I say no such thing. *Scientists* should constantly question the consensus. The role of *wikipedia* however is very different: is it to give primacy to the consensus.
 * in two sentences, you managed to reassert the high priesthood of scientists (giving only THEM the right to question -- when in fact, it is the duty of human BEINGS to question the consensus, regardless of what paper they have behind their name), and re/misdefined npov (which does NOT give primacy to consensus, but give primacy to NEUTRALITY). Ungtss 20:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * and there are plenty of sources that are referenced which imply the same thing. My scientific training teaches quite the opposite.  It teaches to accept the conclusions of past science as a foundation, but then question and challenge each of them and the limits of those conclusions, because almost all revelations come from overturning or qualifying past or current ideas.  Any idea which can't stand up to a simple reasoned challenge has a problem, weakness, or incompleteness, and consensus makes a poor bandaid for those things.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 17:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You're a Linux man, so perhaps you've heard Torvalds's response to people who make claims about what they think would work in the kernel. He simply replies, "Show me code."  That concept carries quite well to science.  If a respected scientist comes running into your office screaming, "We have to take everyone and move them below 40 degrees latitude, the top and bottom of the Earth are going to be destroyed, the consensus of everyone I asked says so!"  Are you going to say, "Well, if the consensus says so, then let's go," or are you going to say, "Show me evidence."?     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 17:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * well said, sir:). Ungtss 19:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)) No, badly said. Cortonin is confusing scientific research with the situation on wikipedia. Furthermore, the evidence has been shown: http://www.ipcc.ch/ and references therein. You are coming very close to the logical fallacy of: "science isn't done by consensus; there is a consensus on X; *therefore* X must be wrong".
 * he said no such thing. He said, "don't tell me what scientists say.  tell my why scientists say it."  Ungtss 20:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Cortonin said: any idea which can't stand up to a simple reasoned challenge has a problem, weakness, or incompleteness, and consensus makes a poor bandaid for those things. In the face of incomplete data there is always need to evaluation.  The idea of a consensus is that it attempts to express what most specialists in the field conclude is the best explanation, taking into account uncertainties, data quality, knowledge gaps, etc.  Those conclusions then need to stand up to scrutiny by their peers.  Work done by a body like the IPCC attempts to get a broad enough range of specialists together to have people able to evaluate the many components of the models, of the science.  No one is a specialist in enough areas to truly evaluate all the research.
 * The Thorvalds example is a bad example. It isn't that claims are being made without data.  The data is there.  But if someone showed me Linux code, it would be meaningless to me.  If I chose to use something, that decision would be based on consensus.  Similarly, if I want to use the output of a GCM to apply to make predictions about land-use change, I would have to accept the opinions of others as to which was the best model.  I could learn all there is to learn about them (I've got a few years to spare, right?), I could pick my favourite maveric and ask him what to pick or I 'could try to figure out what the consensus was on GCMs, figure out what the main objections were to the models, and make a decision based on consensus.  The data isn't hidden, but my own ignorance makes consensus a useful tool.  The consensus may change over time, but it's certainly more valuable to look for consensus than it is to try to interpret data that you can't understand, or to simply reject the consensus because someone says it's not a good idea.  Guettarda 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * rough translation: "There are a lot of unanswered questions and it takes too much work to actually learn about the issues and evaluate the evidence, so let's allow scientists make our guesses and policies for us instead of actually thinking for ourselves." Ungtss 23:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't paraphrase (1) inaccurately, and (2) patronisingly. The first part is half right - figure out what the quality of the consensus is, and then decide whether the information is useful or not. Either one can accept "consensus" as useful, or one can do one's own research, spend the 5+ years it takes to get a degree, postdoc for a few more years doing other people's research, publish obsessively until one gets to the stage where you can get your own grants, and do the research oneself because one thinks that scientists are a bunch of politically motivated liars. Or one can do like politicians, listen to expert opinion, and then do whatever they think will either get the most votes or put the most money and power in the hands of their cronies. Simple enough set of choices. The system of consensus works because they pay-off for rocking the boat is high (although, so is the risk).

As for: so let's allow scientists make our guesses and policies for us instead of actually thinking for ourselves - I have no idea how that can be extracted from what I said. Because you are not dealing with a cabal, but instead with a group where one of the best routes to fame is to prove everyone else wrong, then you have a source of information which is likely to be higher quality than that produced by other sources. You are free to accept it or be skeptical. But to simply be a nay-sayer and say "prove it!" whenever someone says something is grounds only for inaction. "Not thinking" is what most people do. Most people are happy with reasonable questions. But to answer "show me the data" when the data are already there...maybe you should tell that to a weather man the next time they tell you a tornado or hurricane is coming your way. "90% chance a hurricane will hit? You've got to come better than that - if you can't give me 95% I cannot, as a scientist, reject the null, so I'm not evacuating!  Take that you elitist cabal!" Guettarda 00:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<>
 * False dichotomy. one can also require scientists to EXPLAIN and JUSTIFY their conclusions with REASON and EVIDENCE to general satisfaction.  Ungtss 13:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<''But to simply be a nay-sayer and say "prove it!" whenever someone says something is grounds only for inaction.''>>
 * 1) non-sequitur. to say "Prove it!" is not ground only for inaction, but for CAUTION until adequate reason and EVIDENCE have been presented.  surely more caution would have been appropriate when the "scientific consensus" supported Eugenics.  Perhaps if we'd questioned them to OUR satisfaction, things might have gone differently.  as it was, the only people FIGHTING eugenics were CHRISTIANS ... but of course, they weren't "scientific," so they had no place in public discourse in the new and "scientific" world.  Ungtss 13:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<> False analogy.
 * 1) they can observe the event first hand so it's not an ambiguous or open question (which differentiates it from assertions about the past or the future).
 * 2) they have satellite images to satisfy the skeptical.
 * 3) Scientists CAN'T tell us when a storm is coming our way -- they can tell us a storm MIGHT be coming our way, and give us a range of probabilities that we'll get hit -- it is the duty of MAINSTREAM decision-makers make their decisions based on those probabilities, rather than simply taking the "scientific policy makers" at their word. Ungtss 13:50, 25 February 2005 (UTC)

consensus science in intro
why is it absolutely unacceptable to have a brief link to the topic in the intro, when people might well be LOOKING for that discussion when they come to this page? Ungtss 16:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It is in the article. It is not a major part of the article, therefore doesn't need to be in the intro. Seekers can find it - and maybe will learn someting along the way. -Vsmith 16:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * what makes you say it isn't a major part of the article? Ungtss 17:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Simple. Consensus science is a description of a minor abberation where a scientist or more likely a politician or cause advocate misreads what scientific consensus means. Of course you probably like it there as a wedge in your attempt to discredit science - but that is just your POV. -Vsmith 17:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * so your argument is that it's only a "minor abberation." seems to me that's your pov -- a blind faith in scientists ... to the point of allowing them to write our theology for us despite demonstrable incompentance in the area.  but why is your pov as to how often this "aberration" occurs relevent to the positioning of the link within the article?  I want it there simply because i came to this article looking for THAT article, and i think we need to have easy access there from here, just as we have easy access here from there.

my rational: allowing easy access to a HIGHLY relevent article. Your goal: umm ... saving half a line of space in the intro?

justification please? Ungtss 17:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Both your arguments are POV. The fact is this is not a disambiguation page so there is no prerequisite to point people to other pages. To put it in the intro is wrong as it is irrelevant there.--LexCorp 17:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * how is allowing access to a relevent article pov? certainly there's no prerequisite to point people elsewhere, but i think it HELPS, and is there any reason NOT to?  Finally, abuses of scientific consensus ARE relevent to the concept, and that's why i think we need to have access to those abuses in the intro.  thoughts?  Ungtss 18:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * the point is that the link exist within the article in its relevant section and thus it is irrelevant in the intro. --LexCorp 18:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * if there is a section on the topic in the article, then the link IS relevent to the article. the purpose of the intro to is give a basic introduction to the topic, including the major salient points.  one of those salient points is consensus science, and the intro provides easy access to it.  there's the benefit.  what harm does it do?  Ungtss 18:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the point is that some people (including me) do not consider it a salient point at all and wikipedia policy on NPOV allows for the introduction of diverging views but in their relative subheading so as not to confuse the matter being presented and not in the intro. This was already taken place in this article so I just can't undestand your actitude. The harm is that if it is in the intro then it is represented as more salint point that it really is. --LexCorp 18:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>

1) if consensus science is not a salient point at all, then why is it in the article?
 * If it where for me it would not be there. But then you will cry POV. Thus it is included to make the article more NPOV.  --LexCorp 00:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * agreed. in my view, npov is the article translates easily into npov in the intro.  Ungtss 00:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It may translate easily for you but then it will be I who cries POV.--LexCorp 00:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i don't see how it's pov to provide a link to an article on a highly related concept in the introduction. i see that as simply good article writing.  why is it BAD to have this link where people can get to it?  Ungtss 00:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the link is already provided in a section of the article where it is more relevant and in the See Also section. To upgrade it to the intro would give the impresion of been much more relevant than it really is. And thus making it no NPOV. --LexCorp 00:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * providing links in the intro is pov, because it makes the links seem too relevent? that's a new one by me.  seems to me it would be foolish NOT to provide a link to an article which uses the exact same two words in reverse order (Scientific consensus --> Consensus science) in order to aid in encyclopedia navigation, and that the provision of links is not an indication of relevence whatsoever, least of all one that would harm article quality.  Ungtss 01:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Round and round we go. You imply that I want to shut the link altogether. I will remind you that it appears further into the text and in the &#8220;see also&#8221; section. As to your question "providing links in the intro is pov, because it makes the links seem too relevent?" my answer is yes it makes it look more relevant to the subject matter being discuss. The similarity of (Scientific consensus --> Consensus science) just gives strength to my argument of it been a neologism to confuse the matter. I already discussed the matter with you for "science" and "creation science". As for the quality, introducing POV does not improve the article.--LexCorp 01:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * all i see about is proof by assertion without any reasoning as to WHY it's pov to have that link up top, but if it's that important to you, i'll give:(. Ungtss 01:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Reason already established: To upgrade it to the intro would give the impresion of been much more relevant than it really is. --LexCorp 02:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * again, i don't see how it gives that impression, or why giving that impression would be pov in and of itself, or how even if it DID, it wouldn't be outweighed by the benefit of the easily accessible link. but since it's important enough to you to fight this long, i'll give up:).  Ungtss 02:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. I do fell that the link is already well accessible from the article and the See Also Section. --LexCorp 02:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) If it is in the article (and indeed it is), and relevent (which it is also, as an important issue regarding the use of scientific consensus in political circles today) then what's the harm in briefly mentioning it at the end of the intro, to aid people in finding what they're looking for? Ungtss 20:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * An Important and relevant issue just because at the end of that section says "This distortion of scientific consensus toward ideological or political ends has been criticized and referred to as consensus science" is overstating the matter. I consider it really irrelevant and a fabricated neologism just to carry on a "confusion by terminology war". --LexCorp 00:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * valid concern. i will try to tone it down.  Ungtss 00:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm not seeing a "confusion by terminology war." look at the history of consensus science.  i didn't even know it was there until recently -- the term is used quite often, is not confusing, and is highly related to the topic at hand.  what harm!? i ask.  Ungtss 00:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not referring to this article per se but to the tactic used by creationist to confuse people by using neologism without enough information to make a critical judgment. Projects like this lend themselves beautifully to such a tactic.--LexCorp 01:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i don't see any reference to creationism on the consensus science page. on the contrary, i see a lot about al gore and global warming, and oddly enough creationists are used as an EXAMPLE of consensus science.  how is this about defending creationism?  i'm afraid this is simply about scientists who think too highly of themselves:(.  Ungtss 01:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said I was not refering to this articule in particular.--LexCorp 01:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * well then i'll thank you not to accuse me of carrying on "my confusion by terminology war" in this case, as you did above. Ungtss 01:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * fair point I have removed the personal attack. --LexCorp 02:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks, friend:). sorry this one got hot -- i look forward to working with you in the future:).  Ungtss 02:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * no ploblem. --LexCorp 02:36, 26 February 2005 (UTC)

Polling
Marco, the reason the discussion of polling keeps being removed is because there is no reason for it to be there. The question isn't whether a good reason has been given to remove it (though it has) but whether a good reason was given to include it in the first place (there wasn't). I've searched the web and my library for definitions of "scientific consensus" and I've found quite a few but not one of them mentions polling. Why? Science isn't a popularity contest.--JonGwynne 20:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The sentence that appears to offend JG:
 * In cases where there is still significant doubt among that scientific community, methods such as polling are sometimes used to ascertain the existing scientific consensus.
 * It isn't a popularity contest. My picture of what this is referring to is that when decisions must be made, policy makers demand an answer Now!, and for this polling in uncertain or in process science is required. It seems to also be a valid way to assist researchers in a large complex field get a handle on the current state of concensus to help researchers in various parts or subdisciplines focus on the issues and see what needs too be tested and where questionable areas exist. In each of these cases the polling is not to define the science, but rather to assist in decision making and guiding further research. Perhaps a backgtound in science would help you see the issues here. This is discussed (in part) in the body of the article, but maybe needs more clarification there. The above is my good reason for including it. Vsmith 03:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Policy makers"? That's a euphemism for "politician", is it not?  Who cares what they "demand" from science?  How is that even remotely relevant to this article (or to much of anything for that matter)?  Polling measures opinion and nothing else.  If you're picking the next Miss Universe, polling is fine.  If you're deciding matters of facts, polling doesn't mean a thing.  I have seen many different definitions and descriptions of "scientific consensus" and not one of them makes any reference to polling.  Can you provide any that do?--JonGwynne 00:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I have a background in science, and I can see where polling might be useful for summarizing the consensus for outsiders, but off the top of my head I can't think many cases of polling being used to ascertain a scientific consensus except for this survey. Can you name any examples?     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 06:48, 26 April 2005 (UTC)

polling
First of all, it confuses me Marco that you reverted my own edit by saying that you're reverting to me...


 * Because I basically reverted to your version, see -- mkrohn 08:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second, I'm the one who initially added the polling sentence, but as I think about it, I'm having difficulty thinking of many cases where polling was actually accepted as a legitimate assessment of consensus. Polling is occasionally (but rarely) done, but it seems it is more often ignored than accepted. Since I originally put it there, I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea of it being there, but can you think of many specific examples of this? &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 03:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In addition, I think this sentence: In most scientific fields there is no specific mechanism, perceptible to those outside the field, to achieve consensus or to recognize it when it has been achieved. should be trashed. It amounts to "I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it," which is usually just a sign that something isn't well understood or well thought out, rather than a good definition for something. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 03:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you can think of good examples, then add the polling sentence back, but don't revert back in the first sentence (and the one in the middle is just redundantly repeating itself). &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 03:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * O.k. I tend to agree that polling is not a significant tool for ascending scientific consensus and reworded the article to take this into account. -- mkrohn 08:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you agree that polling isn't a "significant tool" for establishing scientific consense, how about we reword the article so it isn't mentioned?--JonGwynne 00:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Because we say that it is used rarely and because it might be interesting to the reader. At least I found it interesting. -- mkrohn 00:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It can be important that polling is used, and still called scientific consensus, precisely because it illustrates that consensus is not a flawless mechanism for identifying truth using a rigorous and idealistic scientific method (as one previous version of this article indicated), but instead, is a collective expert opinion, which just happens to be based on understanding gained through careful scientific study.    &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 00:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no way to know whether or not responses to polls are based on "understanding gained through careful scientific study". Why should that be assumed?--JonGwynne 04:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The responses of scientists to a poll are not always based on understanding gained through careful scientific study, but the vast majority of the time, it is. The degree of understanding, and the degree of carefulness in the study, those vary greatly, but there's always at least the intention, and usually the reality, of basing the opinions on input from scientifically obtained understanding.  I think it should go without saying that scientists are first and foremost humans.  It should also go without saying that scientific understanding is not always truth.  Science is a method, and the results obtained by this method are not always guaranteed to be true, they just tend to get closer to true over time.  Sometimes we see the myth of the scientist as a science machine, which perhaps could be addressed somewhere, but this probably isn't the article for that particular topic.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 21:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is that polls show nothing but opinion. You might be right in your assumption that this opinion is objective and based on dispassionate scientific study, but then again you might not be.  There's no way to know for sure so let's not assume, let's just report the facts and leave it to the individual to sort things out.  Polling is a way of determining a person's opinion and nothing more (or less).  Right?  --JonGwynne 03:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Somewhat denotatively, yes, although using ONLY the word opinion does not present the clearest impression due to multiple meanings of "opinion". Check this definition of opinion.  Polling for scientific consensus should evaluate definition 2, and maybe even definition 3, of "opinion", but far less of this will be definition 1.  The problem is that definition 1 comes first as the more prevalent usage of opinion, so using that word alone does not zoom in to the clearest meaning, and in fact, presents the much less common case of what is being assessed as being a so called "uninformed opinion", rather than an "educated opinion".  If you want to get into an interesting conversation with a scientist about their work, try asking them what they think is true in their field, but that they can't prove.  Sometimes when you poll you will get scientists that will report those things that they think are true and can't prove, and sometimes you will get them to only report the things they can prove.  It varies by individual, and by the phrasing of the question.  Calling it simply "opinion" would be too simplistic to capture this.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 09:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * By contrast, check this definition of consensus. It has "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" and "agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole".  This is what inspired me to describe it as a "collective judgment, position, and opinion of scientists."  Using those words separately I think misses something, but combining them makes more clear what is going on.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 09:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cortonin, this one sentence sums it perfectly up. -- mkrohn 09:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cortonin. It makes a big difference though, when you are trying to assess the opinion of scientists in their own speciality or in a more tangentially related area.  Most people have strong opinions about their own field, so their opinion is likely to be related to their interpretation of information they are intimately associated with.  This does not mean that they are unbiased, of course.  As for polling itself - scientific societies do poll their membership - policy documents, research agendas, these kind of things are likely to reflect "consensus" based, at least in part on voting.  Guettarda 21:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, good point. I forgot about society surveys.  Often those are more about internal matters, like where to spend money and who should run the society, but they can sometimes reflect on more scientific matters, such as deciding what areas are worth focusing work on.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 22:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As of yet, there has been no evidence provided to show that polls conducted measure anything but opinion - no indication that they do anything different than any other poll... and yet certain people insist on reverting back to a version that make unsupported and undocumented assumptions about what happens during a poll. Either provide the evidence or stop reverting, those are your choices. Anything else is belligerent pushing of POV.--JonGwynne 18:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you poll a collection of scientists and ask them, "Do you think quantum mechanics is well supported, partly supported, weakly supported, or not at all supported by the evidence?" then you will get their judgment of this, position on this, and opinion about this. It's more than just opinion, because they can base their response on more than just opinion.  Can you magically "distinguish" whether a scientist has based his or her response on some sort of judgment or weighing of the evidence?  No, but since you're polling a large body, you are guaranteed to get people who have considered and weighed the evidence, and so your aggregate result will include more than just opinion.  And in fact, it would be a mistake to imply that the scientific consensus does not include the collective opinions of scientists, because it certainly does, precisely because scientists are human and in humans it is known that opinion merges with judgment and assessment.  So it's not valid to say that this is not the scientific consensus simply because some opinions are averaged in.  That would just imply that someone is assuming an idealistic impression of scientific consensus or the scientific process which doesn't conform to reality.  Science is no perfect art of truth, it's simply a method for progressively getting closer to it.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 19:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that's a series of unwarranted assumptions on your part. Why do you assume that when asked for their opinion, scientists will give something other than their opinion?  That's all a poll is, it questions a person's opinion.  Now, if you want to argue that Scientific Consensus is merely the reflection of the opinion of a majority of scientists that that changes things, but I don't think too many people here would agree with that analysis of it.  You say that in a sufficiently large poll, the results are "guaranteed" to be more than just opinion.  How is that "guaranteed"?  It is a fair question, don't you agree?--JonGwynne 21:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * A fair question with a simple answer. It's a statistical argument.  If you ask 500 physicists the question I gave above, what do you think the odds are that all 500 of them gave you an uninformed opinion?  The probability of that is slim to none.  If only a single one of them gave an informed opinion, which is more appropriately called a judgment, or an assessment, then the average result will contain more than just opinion.  Even if half of them give you an uninformed opinion (also statistically very unlikely, given the number of physicists I know), the average result will still contain a strong slant toward the collective consensus.  In reality, the actual result will be that a handful of respondents will be uninformed but will perhaps think they are informed, and chunk of the respondents will be informed and make a somewhat educated assessment, and the remaining majority will be well informed on that particular topic and make a reasonably educated assessment.  And all of them will exhibit some bias, for example, that most of them learned physics during a time period in which quantum mechanics is essentially accepted as unquestioned fact in physics.  This is still informed, but biased, because they probably question it less than is optimal since it has become accepted orthodoxy.  But this presence of some bias does not make it "just opinion".  For it to be uninformed opinion, they must be uninformed in that area, or be using no information from their training to make the assessment, and statistically speaking, this is just not the case.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 01:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what would happen if you asked 500 physicists the same question and, with all respect, neither do you (or, more to the point, neither does anyone else in the world). My point is that the results depend on a great many things - not the least of which are the questions asked and the nature of the subject.  For a nice, abstract concept like quantum mechanics, it might not be a problem.  But for an issue like global warming where, unfortunately, politics plays just as big a role as science (certainly with examples like WMC, Marco and VSmith who can't separate politics and their prejudices from science), the issue is much trickier.  BTW, notice how the reference to confirmation bias keeps getting nuked even though it is central to any balanced discussion of scientific consensus.  Anyway, my point is that it is necessary to discuss the role that opinion plays in this issue and those who want to believe that because a knot of like-minded individuals who share the views that their acolytes have been parroting back here (no named mentioned) means that "the discussion is over because the consensus is in".  In the meantime, we're no closer to having any actual reference that says polling plays a sufficiently significant role in determining scientific consensus that it warrants mention in the introduction to an encylopedia article on the subject.  You seem to be one of the more level-headed people here, maybe you can come up with something.--JonGwynne 02:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As a humorous aside, I was searching for papers on scientific consensus, and stumbled across an article where someone was analyzing popular conceptions about scientific consensus and conducted "an analysis of 187 reviews published on Amazon.com". :)  It's amazing what gets published sometimes.  But anyway, the simplest reference is this.  Opinion IS part of consensus.  So yeah, there are plenty of biased people out there, and their opinions are part of the consensus.  There's a reason why my user page says what it does.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 07:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If opinion is part of consensus, then why doesn't the article say that. I don't know if I agree that "scientific consensus" is literally the consensus of scientists - or whether it is a "term of art" used by scientists and for them, "consensus" means something different (and in many way the opposite) of what it means to other people.  This is something that should also be addressed by the article but every time I try, my changes are reverted by people with an axe to grind.--JonGwynne 14:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And for the record, I would have probably objected to the removal of the confirmation bias reference from the page, except that it is linked to and discussed in greater detail lower down the page. You have to remember that, while scientific consensus is perhaps a hot issue right now in global warming, global warming is a very tiny subset of the body of scientific work, and for most of it, the process of forming and establishing consensus works quite well.  Global warming is simply more contentious because its supporters believe there is danger if global action is not taken, and therefore, definitively defining the scientific consensus is being pushed as a much more important point than in other areas of science, where it is more acceptable to let the scientific consensus grow more carefully and gradually over time.  It is actually the pressure for political action which puts the sense of urgency and conflict into the process of assessing the scientific consensus, and the accuracy levels which can be placed on that consensus.  I would suggest adding a section on this, but it seems we already have one with the "Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making" section.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 07:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand that global warming isn't in any way directly related to the issue of global warming. That's the main reason I was able to successfully appeal one of the attempts of the censorship squad to have me banned for a revert violation.  :->   Anyway, I like your idea of talking about the politicization of consensus by environmental extremists.  Are you going to work something up from that and add it?  I think you should.  I know there is a detailed discussion of it in the body of the article, but it should also be mentioned in the intro, don't you think?--JonGwynne 14:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * p.s. I have read the talk Marco and your belligerent reverts to the side, you've still not bothered to justify them.  Care to explain?  I doubt it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't mean to come off as rude as you have been.--JonGwynne 21:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Consensus in science is usually achieved through an informal agreement as to what the best science is. When people publish they work within certain frameworks, seminal papers get cited, this then moves into monographs and then into textbooks.  If there is disagreement, then people publish counterexamples and criticisms.  Either people are convinced, or they start to dismiss that person's "obsession" with [whatever].  Polling (when it occurs) actually asks the question.  As far as "opinions" go, the difference between polling and informal acceptance is (i) the question actually gets asked and people get to express what they think directly, and (ii) often a wider cross-section is asked than is actively publishing on the topic.  Because this generally goes to people's careers and credibility, opinions expressed tend to be more than "just opinions"...if you want to be taken seriously you can't very well ignore the published data.  So it is more than "just and opinions".  Guettarda 21:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"In other cases methods such as polling can be used to determine the opinions of scientists on a given subject." was the version given by JonGwynne. The other version is: "In other cases methods such as polling are used to ascertain the scientific consensus."

Cortonin gave a detailed argument why "consensus" is a better term than "opinion". Furthermore, your (Jon) version talks about "opinions" (emphasize by me). Finding the opinions of scientists is a lot easier than reaching consensus. For instance in the example given by Cortonin the opinions of scientists is a set consisting of "supported", "partly supported", "weakly supported", "not at all supported", but this is not the consensus of the group.

In reality things can be far more complex and it is possible (or perhaps even likely) that the group consensus differs from every single opinion of the group. This means no one of the group agrees to 100% with the consensus and thus the consensus is not necessarily an element of the set of opinions. -- mkrohn 22:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. You might also want to read the article consensus.


 * All well and good but none of it answers the question (and I don't think Cortonin was saying what you claim he was saying). Here's the central question:  Where is the reference that shows that polling plays a role in determining scientific consensus?  You keep trying to tap-dance around the subject and divert attention from the lack of support for this claim but I'm perfectly happy to keep dragging you back to it if necessary.  To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, I can keep to the point when it suits me and I can keep you to the point whether it suits you or not.  Your persistent reverts without any foundation to back them up simply reinforce the fact that you have nothing to back up your position and are reverting to the "because I said so, that's why!" school of argument.  Wikipedia deserves better.  Don't you agree?--JonGwynne 02:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I think I see a scientific consensus developing here. By my observations there are five scientifically literate wikipedians who have reached a working consensus on the polling issue. I'd say we have a scientific consensus, or - maybe we should conduct a poll? Original research! - I can hear the charge now. :-) Vsmith 02:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You think this is "scientific consensus"? I sure hope not.  Maybe you were just being sarcastic.  If not, I would respectfully suggest that you recuse yourself from further commentary on the subject or editing of the article.  BTW, your thinly-veiled insult is a violation of wikipedia policy - but your violations of policy are neither new nor rare so I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise.  ;-> --JonGwynne 02:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Scientific opinion on climate change lists several surveys that help identifying scientific consensus. Quote: "The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change." -- mkrohn 18:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, actually, they don't. The only thing those surveys do is reinforce the prejudices of those who participated in them.  You'll notice that the results of the various surveys turned out exactly as one would have expected given the people who were sponsoring them (what a coincidence...  NOT!).  The surveys done by right-wing groups showed that the majority believed human activity wasn't responsible for global warming and the leftist surveys all showed the opposite.  No surprises there.  This is why I am saying that polling is a bad way to determine scientific consensus.  If you want to find out what someone's opinion is, a survey is a great thing.  But opinion isn't science.  Look at the controversy over Lomborg's book.  He writes a book that shows statistically that some people's deeply-held beliefs are wrong and he gets viciously attacked for it.  In spite of the fact that his book was stringently peer-reviewed, there are still people spreading lies about it not being reviewed.  Instead of poking holes in Lomborg's scientific conclusions, they take personal shots at him.  The only reasonably conclusion is that there are no significant problems with the science of the book and all his critics have left in their bag of arguments is ad hominem.  Pretty sad if you ask me.  But it makes my point.  Opinion is a bad thing when it comes to science and people who confuse opinion with science are either misguided (if they do it accidentally) or actually evil (if they do in intentionally).  --JonGwynne 02:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Opinion can be a fascinating and insightful part of science. See here, for example.  It's policy that doesn't do so well when it rests on opinions.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 02:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course the opinions of scientists can be interesting. But they're still opinions.  The article in question is about "scientific consensus" and, as such, should be about facts rather than opinions.  That's all I'm saying.  There should be a clear and absolute differentiation between opinion, hypothesis and proven fact...  wouldn't you agree?--JonGwynne 05:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Scientific consensus is not fact. It's a phenomenon which emerges from scientists (who are people), not a definitive representation of truth.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 09:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I notice that there is *STILL* no evidence from any of the knee-jerk revert-artists that polls measure anything but the opinion of those who are polled.--JonGwynne 05:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)