Talk:Scientific consensus/Archive 2

Rewrites
I rewrote two sections. In both I tried to be as NPOV as possible and the emphasize that there's no easy answer here. The relationship between science and policy is not straightforward -- it is not a case of "scientists come up with theory, policy follows." Sometimes science is not consulted at all by policymakers. Sometimes it is consulted and things go horribly wrong. The question of "scientific consensus" becomes a rhetorical strategy as much as anything else. Etc. I tried to emphasize some of this and get away from the prescriptive approaches that existed before (there is an entire branch of science studies built up around science and policy, it is not an easy subject at all).

I used the global warming and creationist examples simply because they are the best known as easiest to understand. I tried to do so in a way which left the question of whether one is correctly representing scientific consensus or not open -- those are battles for other articles to duke out, not this one. It is worth using them though to point out the way in which "scientific consensus" becomes a contested item of worth.

On the change of scientific consensus over time, this is again a complicated question. I highlighted what I consider the three main theories of scientific change, which I find give a pretty good overview of the variety present in the different models. Basically, there are those who think that scientific change happens linearly, those than think it happens in horizontal shifts, and those who think there is no pattern or progress to it at all. Again, I wanted the article to indicate that this was an interesting and open question, not something with a simple little answer, because that's certainly not the state of knowledge in the philosophy, sociology, or history of science.

Let me know if I've been unclear or have failed in some way. Hopefully a fresh rewrite will clear out some of the old arguments. --Fastfission 03:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, now that the Climate wars have quieted down a bit following the Arbcom decision, I've taken a look at the rewrites. Firstly, the emphasis on two highly publicized controversies (climate & creationism) does a misservice to the article. Both of these are overblown and the creation arguement is bogus and non-science. The discussion needs to be more about the unhyped everyday use of scientific consensus as was the intent of the discussion before the rewrite.
 * Secondly: the discussion in the change over time section needs to be more about science and leave the philosophers somewhere else, they have little relevance in actual scientific, business and political decisions and workings involved with scientific consensus issues. We can pontificate about the philsophers elsewhere. My 2 cents for now :-) -Vsmith 15:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you object to talking about creationism/climate -- they are the two debates in which "consensus" is most commonly invoked, challenged, etc., so they are the most interesting and relevant to talk about in their use of it specifically. Scientific consensus is not invoked everyday -- it is just assumed and taken for granted, it is only invoked in debates. I'm not sure why you're opposed to discussing different models for changing consensus in an article about this -- they do have relevance; the model one subscribes to will drastically change what one thinks of "scientific consensus" (a Popperian will think it is closer to truth, a Kuhnian might be skeptical of it, a Feyerabendian will not give a wit). I think it is written fairly clearly, if you don't find it relevant, please explain why. --Fastfission 16:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Ed's question
I've always felt that consensus was a political term. You might disagree with a plan, but you're willing to go along with the others in the hopes that it can be made to work somehow.

As for a scientific question, how can it be put to rest until it is answered definitively? Planets either travel in circular orbits or ellipses. It's not up to the majority. Boyle's law can be independently verified by anyone with the skill and curiosity to check it.

It's ridiculous to take a poll of scientists. If less than 95% are sure of something, then it's not science: it's guesswork: it's a hypothesis which has not been confirmed yet.

Anyone can "veto" a hypothesis. It just takes one reputable researcher finding a single exception to the rule, to prove that the rule is not true.


 * Sorry, veto is the wrong word here; I thought you'd cut me some slack because I put it in scare quotes. I'm referring to the well-known example of asserting that "All sheep are white". It just takes one confirmed observation of a black sheep to disprove this hypothesis.

In practice, several independent researchers or teams of researchers will attempt to duplicate the results, and if enough of them fail to do so the whole matter is dropped. And the hypothesis is discarded as unverifiable.

If 67% of researchers in a field think a certain thing is so, this again is not science. We need everyone who looks into to say, "Yep, it's just as the journal article said. I've confirmed it." Uncle Ed 19:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed, this is scientifically naive and bad editing. I see you're having a bout of editing the climate pages again. Sigh. It will all end in tears, but whose? It is simply not true, in practice, that Anyone can "veto" a hypothesis. It just takes one reputable researcher finding a single exception to the rule, to prove that the rule is not true.. This is a very Popperian view of science. But it doesn't work like that. If there is a huge body of opinion saying X, and one paper saying not-X, then people don't just say "oh well thats it then". They say: "interesting. I wonder if thats true. We'll test out this new not-X idea." And they do, and things evolve. The 67% stuff... its just wrong. William M. Connolley 20:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC).

I don't know why you deleted the opposing view by the 1st DOE secretary:


 * James Schlesinger wrote, "Science is not a matter of consensus, as the histories of Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Einstein and others will attest. Science depends not on speculation but on conclusions verified through experiment."

Does anyone other than Dr. C. mind if I put it back in? Uncle Ed 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Ed! I - and probably most of others - fully endorse your idea. --Lumidek 23:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed -- the thing that confuses me about the rewrites you've been doing is that you seem to be confusing the issue of "scientific consensus" and "ontological truth" (what is true in a "real" sense). The page as I originally wrote it (which seems to have been thoroughly edited by now) attempted to make clear that these two things are both quite problematic and that nobody is necessarily saying that one is the other. The Schlesinger quote would not "disagree" with such an assessment -- what Schlesinger is trying to say is that truth is not a matter of consensus, which is not the same thing as saying that such a thing like "scientific consensus" does not exist.

Two historical examples, using the Schlesinger quote: Copernicus may have been closer to the truth than the Ptolemaic system (Copernicus is not currently regarded as "true", by the way), but his ideas were not embraced by the scientific community and did not in any sense represent the "consensus" amongst practitioners of science until after Galileo's work (Between 1545 and 1700 there were about a dozen Copernicans total). Scientific consensus was simply wrong in this instance, for a variety of reasons (the Church as an external influence played a big role here).

On the other hand, if we look at Einstein, we see a different story. Scientific consensus very quickly switched over to support Einstein, to the extent that a number of individual scientists at the time resented it strongly, feeling that consensus had shifted without adequate evidence. However now we think that Einstein was right and they were wrong -- that Einstein was even closer to "truth" than could have been known at the time. In this instance, scientific consensus was "right".

The way I thought this topic ought to have been written was one which introduced scientific consensus as concept (something which may exist in one form or another, though gauging it is a tricky question), but tried to be as non-committal as possible to its relationship to either truth or public policy. I feel that this would be a NPOV approach to the question -- wouldn't you? --Fastfission 23:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] It's a bit too simplistic. The suggestion that a single experiment, or a single series of experiments, can "set things straight" is not the reality in many sciences life earth sciences, life science, astronomy, etc.  There are small number problems, where you can actually measure things, like the earth's passage around the sun.  There are large number problems where you can safely average things, particles in solution, where you have 6x10^23 particles per mole.  But then there are all the other areas, where you don't have enough to generalise but you have far too many to count. So you operate by consensus on what seems to be the best explanation for the observed data.  Sometimes you get very simple, phenomenological "laws"; in other cases you have simple elegant explanations which everyone knows are wrong, but which do the job of explaining observations better than any existing data.
 * The species-area relationship in ecology is sometimes called the one general "law" in ecology. In bigger areas, you have more species.  Why?  No one knows for certain, but "area" per se is almost certainly not the driver of species richness.  A large number of mechanistic hypotheses have been proposed, and many of them have been experimentally supported.  Conflicting hypotheses have been supported.  So what's going on?  It's possible that more than one explanation is true.  It's up to the experts in the field to determine for themselves which experiments they trust more.  While the single outlier might be seen by some as "proof" that the established models are wrong and should be discarded, more likely it was because one of the hundreds of factors which play a part in real systems was improperly measured in this study, or that there was unobserved confounding in the experiment, or...
 * Your job as an expert is to look at the various conflicting experiments and weigh them. The weight of evidence supports y, but there are these studies which suggest that y is not the case.  So what do you do?  You look at the studies, and you assess their credibility.  Could the data have been misinterpreted?  Could there be unexplained or unrecognised confounding?  Did the scientists make a mistake?  Scientists consider these anomalies individually.  People try to replicate them because the pay-off for being part of "the next big thing" are big enough to be worth the risk.  Science is rarely determined through single experiments, but rather through consensus.  The consensus is not one of votes, but of common conclusions - most people will come to the same conclusion looking at the same results.  Some people will not interpret the data in the same way - so there are disagreements.  Consensus is not determined, in effect, through popular acclaim.  But the maverick is often rewarded - there are risks associated with working at the fringe, but the payoffs are high if you are right.  Guettarda 00:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Dr. Schlesinger's quote is a valid subject for inclusion in the article. As he well knew, scientists in the public eye serve two masters. The search for truth and the job of providing guidence to policy makers - your politicians. The truthsearch is not controversial. Serving the other master can be quite controversial. The state of any science is inherenty uncertain (it's the name of the game), but policy makers demand to know now what the science says to guide decision making. Thus the scientists working for them must provide a best answer which is often based on the current scientific consensus and some judgement on its reliability. Scientists not working for the policy makers would seldom need the term scientific consensus - it is rather alien to them.


 * The current article rather badly blurs this distinction and confuses scientific consensus with paradigm shiftings and the rather normal human resistance to really new ideas until they are strongly supported.


 * The two strands need to be better defined and separated in the article.
 * Vsmith 00:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Guettarda, your answer seemed to make sense, but it's too long: I couldn't even skim it. Can you summarize it a bit, please? Uncle Ed 15:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll give it a try. It may take a day or two though.  Guettarda 17:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

scientific consensus inside Wikipedia
It was claimed that omitting this highly interesting and even essential point is "minor" and that there "should be no self reference". In that case obviously he/she may delete the article Wikipedia as well!

Anyway, I would instead also agree with a similar remark linking from this article to "Wikipedia", and with such a remark included at the proper place in the Wikipedia article with a link from from there to here. What do you prefer? Harald88 18:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I too have removed your text:


 * This is also relevant for Wikipedia itself: it may be expected that minority POV's will be regularly suppressed in articles, even without valid evidence against them.


 * First, self-reference is to be avoided if possible. Second, I disagree with the point: minority POV is over-represented in most of wiki, and not suppressed enough. Thirdly, this has nothing to do with *scientific consensus*. Your point is about minority viewpoints; there is nothing that ties that to *science*. William M. Connolley 19:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC).

non-vandalism of this page
I would like to discourage everyone who is not a professional scientist from making counterproductive edits of this page. Several people have tried to remove the crucial sentence from the first, defining paragraph - namely that the scientific consensus is not a part of the scientific method. Please, don't do it again. Lubos Motl, Harvard U. --Lumidek 02:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There was no vandalism, that was simply deceptive. I would like to encourage everyone to edit this page as that is what Wikipedia is all about. Of course it helps to know a bit about the subject and it is important to back up your edits with sources. But, you don't have to be from Harvard or have a science degree from anywhere.edu, just - to emphasize - have verifiable references to base your edits on. Cheers! Vsmith 03:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Harvard-based or non-Harvard based, pov-pushers who operate through threats and personal attacks have no credibility as far as I am concerned. Guettarda 03:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Gosh Lubos, does this mean youve going to leave the climate pages to climatologists? No, thought not... I would like to discourage everyone who is not a professional scientist from making counterproductive edits of this page is funny. Does that mean that you encourage professional scientists *to* make counterproductive edits? *I* encourage *everyone* not to make counterproductive edits. I encourage Lubos not to throw his weight around and to recognise him limitations: I value his opinions on subjects like gravity; sadly his POV-pushing on climate change is all too obvious.


 * Meanwhile, I've had my own hack at the intro following FF's go. And I removed the bit about polling: I don't think this is often/ever used (at least within GW). William M. Connolley 11:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC).

Search for a simpler example
Cut from article:


 * For example, in physics there exists scientific consensus on general relativity and quantum mechanics. Special relativity and quantum mechanics are unified in the framework of quantum field theory (QFT). There exists scientific consensus that QFT is a very useful description, but it is not a final theory. For example, it does not include gravity. General relativity and quantum mechanics may be unified by superstring theory but there is no consensus whether this candidate unifying theory is the correct description of reality.

I took 2 years of physics, and I don't even claim to understand any of this other than maybe gravity. Can't we pick an example that someone with a high-school or undergraduate education could understand? There must be something which is (1) well-known and (2) understood by many non-scientists.

How about Pasteur's germ theory of disease? You can see germs in a microscope, and everyone knows someone who's taken pills or gotten shots to "get better" with medicine that kills germs. --Uncle Ed 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rv: why
I'm afraid I reverted Eds changes. I wouldn't say they were all bad, but some seemed to skew the page towards his POV: an obvious example is dropping climate change from E & ClCh as examples of little sci cont; or adding in the assertion that "Many theories relating to health and the environment lack consensus". Perhaps we can work towards a compromise. William M. Connolley 10:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't be afraid. You're an admin now (and I'm not). You'll get away with it. :-)


 * But I think we need more emphasis on challenges to scientific consensus. The 19th century has examples of people who challenged the prevailing scientific views on transmisson of disease (e.g., Ignaz Semmelweis) but were proven right decades later. And Feynmann worked practically single-handedly against the commission investigating the Challenger disaster and got the right answer (in modern times).


 * The assumption that "it's the consensus, it must be right" is decidedly anti-scientific. The only thing that matters in science is reproducibility of results. Heh, we don't even have an article on that, do we, Doc? Puh-leaze tell me I'm wrong. --Uncle Ed 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then, you're arguing that its better to use examples from the past where we know what the right answer turned out to be. Which again makes GW a bad example. No-one is arguing its the consensus, it must be right. Its a septic strawman. Though I have seen people argue "its the consensus, it must be wrong" (Crichton). Reproducibility of results? No problem. What do you see as non-reproducible? William M. Connolley 19:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and majority
Cut from intro:


 * The scientific consensus is determined by assessing the of those scientists.

Who says so? And how do they define "significant majority agreement"

If 75% of scientists believe the earth revolves around the sun, does that mean there is a consensus on the matter? How about 85%? or 95%? --Uncle Ed 14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to prove that I don't automatically disagree with Ed, I agree with him here. In many disciplines, there is no clear meachanism for recognising consensus, generally because it isn't necessary. William M. Connolley 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have four grains of sand. Is it a pile? How about if I add another grain of sand? Another? Another? Consensus is not an all-or-nothing affair. Some loon-balls believe that there was no Holocaust. Would it matter if that number of loon-balls doubled? Tripled? Halved? The fact remains that people familiar with the evidence and trained in judging that evidence competently agree overwhelmingly that there was a Holocaust. Many of those who disagree just happen to be rabid anti-Semites who collect Nazi memorobilia and can recite chapter and verse from Mein Kampf. Similar remarks apply to the theory of evolution (opponents often belong to the John-Templeton-Foundation-Funded Discovery Institute), and human-caused global warming (opponents often belong to industry-funded front groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute). In cases where there are two or more "warring" camps, scientists attempt to test a variety of hypotheses until one emerges as the "winner". This "how many grains of sand make a pile?" mentality is fallacious and distracting.


 * JUST TO CLARIFY: I am not dropping the Hitler-bomb on either Intelligent Design fans OR the anti-anthropogenic global warming camp. My point is simply that, just as Holocaust denialists often have a personal and ideological stake in their beliefs (rather than, say, a different and equally sensible way of interpreting WWII documents or film clips), so people in these two camps have a personal, financial stake (arguably) in the beliefs which they hold. I don't mean to suggest that either (1) all people in both camps believe as they do purely for personal, financial reasons, or that (2) all people in both camps are stupid, ignorant, crazy, or immoral. My point is ONLY that many of the leaders in both camps SURE DO SEEM to have a vested interest in believing as they do--an interest which has nothing to do with observation, experiment, and the interpretation of data. This "seeming," of course, is not ironclad proof. Dicksonlaprade 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Under "Uncertainty and Scientific Consensus," a link needs to be added to Lindzen's piece. A link also needs to be added to Oreskes' response in the LA Times . I intend to make these changes, and the one which follows, on or about August 12. Also, the first sentence in the second para. of this section is a non-starter: ". . .there are those involved in the debate over global warming who take the stand that 'scientific consensus' supports the idea that human activity is drastically altering the environment in a potentially disastrous way. . . ." This wording does no justice to the fact that there IS a scientific consensus, and that anthropogenic GW people are on the side of that consensus. Anyone who would argue otherwise is welcome to provide references to at least three articles PUBLISHED IN PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE JOURNALS which take issue with anthropogenic GW. Since the anthropogenic GW-ers already have the IPCC reports and Oreskes' piece, I believe that the burden of proof is now on the other camp to demonstrate the absence of scientific consensus.


 * Lotsa luck.Dicksonlaprade 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Completed changes to "Uncertainty" section. Did not include link to Oreskes' refutation of Lindzen's piece since it was not germaine to the paragraph's main point. 129.15.127.254 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC). Sorry, this was me, dicksonlaprade, who just made the changes to "uncertainty" Dicksonlaprade 17:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion
If you revert my entire contribution, please retain the TotallyDisputed tag. We need to talk. Thank you. --Uncle Ed 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, you seem to be the only one who has a problem with this article. You also seem to be the only one who rejects the notion that there could be such a thing as scientific consensus or that it has any existance or usage outside of the emissions issue. You have not a single source to back up this assertion, from what I can see, and do not seem to be aware that the issue of scientific consensus is used in all sorts of places, including but not limited to regulatory debates in the United States. You also make a lot of bald assertions as to what is "usually" the case, again without a source to be seen. You also assert that consensus is not important to the philosophy of science; this is nonsense, as the question of how scientific communities change their consensus opinions on issues is one of the most common areas of discussion in the philosophy and sociology of science. And so on with your changes.
 * I want to assume good faith here Ed. But every change you've made seems to be with one goal in mind: you don't like it when people claim that there is consensus about global warming amongst scientists. You've decided to take the approach that the best method to diffuse this here is not to claim that there isn't consensus, but rather to try and attack the notion of consensus itself.
 * This is not the way to try and build a neutral article, and you know that. The article in its current state is not an uncritical celebration of consensus. It contains numerous statements to the effect that the truth-status of consensus is not clear, that consensus is often invoked for political reasons in policy disputes, and that consensus is not easy to establish in any case. I am not sure how you think that your version is more neutral on the whole.
 * If you want to add additional points relating to any of the examples, or think that any individual paragraph or sentence needs modification, feel free to point them out. But don't try to sabotage the article, don't allow yourself to become an uncritical POV-pusher. It doesn't help anything or anybody, and it is unnecessarily petty. --Fastfission 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your constructive criticism and will reflect upon it. Thank you. :-) --Uncle Ed 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

'Within the field'
An editor on Talk:Parapsychology has expressed the view that articles on parapsychology must necessarily be focused on the views of those 'within the field', and skeptical views sidelined. See his essay here for more details. I do not agree with this, it just seems like bending the much stronger Neutral point of view rules.-- Nydas (Talk) 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fallacy?
Appeals to popularity in the context of scientific debate are fallacious. If anyone doubts this, please discuss. As an example, imagine a mathematical "proof" that used "scientific consensus" as its evidence. 70.130.219.151 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Appealling to popularity as a means of deciding scientific truth is incorrect. However Nevertheless, claims of consensus in the context of scientific debate are fallacious is not true. If I am debating - for example - global warming and I say "oh, and by the way there is a sci cons on this" then that claim is not automatically falacious, as your edit implies. The page already makes the point that I think you are trying to make Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method;  William M. Connolley 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me ask this very clearly: Are you saying that an appeal to popularity in a debate is not an argumentative fallacy? 70.130.219.151 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry i believe you are referring to the wrong logical fallacy - if its anything then its an Appeal to Authority - and as the specific caveats are explained on the page - in this particular case it is not a fallacy. --Kim D. Petersen 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * An appeal that claims that a hypothesis is popular, and that this popularity is evidence of its truth, is an appeal to popularity, or the bandwagon fallacy. It is misleading and harmful in healthy debate, particularly in science. 70.130.243.126 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Strictly speaking it is a logical fallacy, not an argumentative fallacy. An argument rarely works according to strict proof. Instead, beliefs are updated given observation (which may include other people's expressed belief).  Your beliefs should change given the opinion of experts, so it is reasonable to use them in an argument.  I would be more than happy to show you the Bayesian model of beliefs and how this updating takes place.  With specific regard to editing, you have added the same material three times.  I am happy to discuss it here, but be aware of the three revert rule and I ask you not violate it.  --TeaDrinker 00:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm a mathematician, so "belief" is not a big priority for me when it comes to science. Instead, I prefer evidence and (ideally) proof over opinion - which is why appeals to authority are indeed fallacious.  The point is that any individual can be wrong in their belief.  Groups are made up of individuals, and so any group can be wrong in their belief.  Therefore, that there is a group, even complete unanimity, that believes in some thing, that thing is not necessarily true. 70.130.243.126 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I don't usually describe myself as a mathematician, I do have a degree in math so quantitative thinking is not outside my realm either. Suppose X is a specific belief (that is a statement about the world).  One popular model for beliefs is probability, so P(X) is your belief that the statement is true.  So you are interested in the probability of X given an expert opinion E.  Using Bayes rule for this,
 * $$Pr(X|E) = \frac{Pr(E|X)Pr(X)}{Pr(E|X)Pr(X)+Pr(E|\tilde{X})Pr(\tilde{X})}$$
 * The probabilities Pr(X) and Pr(E|X) are your prior belief in X and the probability of getting the expert opinion given that X is true. So under this model of belief, provided you do believe the evidence and the expert opinion are correlated at all, and you are not a priori certain of X (or not X), you would rationally update your beliefs in some way given expert opinion, so they can be used in an argument.
 * There are, of course, drawbacks to this model. First, there is some reasonable question whether beliefs are well modeled by probability statements.  There is an assumption made that expert opinion is not independent of the true state of X.  There are even more complex points about the universalizability of this arguement.  These are all valid points, and I could even discuss further (and they have been discussed in the philosophical and statistical literature).  However it is worth noting, in the mean time, that the case is not as clear cut as your edit, or your statements above seem to imply.  Thus I don't think it makes a good addition to the article.  --TeaDrinker 01:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're comparing apples to oranges - but, at least you got it off your chest. That can be a good thing. Back on topic: imagine a mathematical proof that simply noted that all experiments suggest this thing, and most experts agree with the conjecture, therefore it's a theorem. 70.130.230.114 02:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you fully understand. My point is it is quite reasonable for expert opion to sway belief, thus your claim that a claim of consensus is an invalid argument is not a priori obvious as you claim. Perhaps we are talking past eachother.  Can you rephrase your idea or point?  --TeaDrinker 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, one more attempt. In a debate, if someone says, "expert A says it's true, so it must be true", then it is easy to find a counter-example where an expert was wrong, showing that an expert opinion is not conclusive. Based on this logic, and based on the fact that any group of experts is made up of a collection of individual experts, then since any individual can be wrong, it is easy to see that any group can be wrong. This is logic. This is why any claim that an expert, a group of experts, or even all experts believe some thing - that does not prove anything in an of itself. This is why it is a fallacy - indeed, a well-known fallacy.
 * I am well aware that opinion, expert or otherwise, can sway belief. I'm not talking about belief. I'm talking about truth. 70.130.136.248 05:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The nature of evidence is that it makes views about the world more or less likely; A theory about the world, at least interesting ones, are underdetermined by observation. If I can not convince you that science does not establish facts by logical proof, have I at least convinced you failing to use a strict logical proof in a scientific discussion is at not a priori invalid and may be considered reasonable to many people?  --TeaDrinker 06:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about "strict logical proof", I'm talking about fallacy used in debate. Lawyers and philosophers study these things, not just logicians. Using this type of appeal is equivalent to using other fallacies. Appeals to consensus are misleading and have not merit in debate. 70.130.209.78 16:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

70.130.136.248 already said what's the point here: Therefore, that there is a group, even complete unanimity, that believes in some thing, that thing is not necessarily true. This is why appeal to consensus is a logical fallacy in any debate. I dont understand why this is discussed any further. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose the disconnect is that strict logical fallacies can still establish beliefs (in fact, you may note that no evidence provides unequivocal support--that is logical proof--of any interesting theory). Thus it is not "a[n] argumentative fallacy to use consensus in the context of a scientific debate"--it may in fact be very rational. --TeaDrinker 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe to move this discussion forward, how about the wording "Although scientific consensus does not independently establish truth, it may be an indicator of what a person familiar with the evidence would conclude." Does that adequately capture what you're trying to say? --TeaDrinker 15:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people believe that consensus ends the debate. This is ridiculous. It is important to point out that belief and truth are often contradictory. That's the point. In the context of debate over scientific hypotheses, claims of consensus are fallacious. I can't say it any more clearly. 70.130.209.78 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not feel comfortable with the wording you just proposed. I'll think about something, unless someone has another idea.
 * I understand your point, which seems to be that provided there is actually a scientific consensus, that is the best way we have to estimate what is knowledge and what is not. But we also know that scientific consensuses have a questionnable history (heliocentrism, phlogiston theory, ...). Appeals to consensus are not a logical fallacy per se when they are called upon to indicate the state of our actual knowledge, but they are when they are called upon to "prove" something or used to eradicate doubt about a theory.
 * The other problem that remains (but that's only my opinion) is that a scientific consensus cannot be verified nor proven. It can only be presumed. So appealing to a scientific consensus is like using an unproven fact to prove something... --Childhood&#39;s End 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we're all circling around the same idea. No evidence in science, even experimental or observational, could establish a theory beyond all doubt (although sometimes beyond reasonable doubt), in such a way that it would end scientific debate, particularly with regard to the incorporation of new evidence.  That of course includes a scientific consensus, but it does not follow that a scientific consensus is not useful to note or is not compelling.  I am certainly not tied to my wording and look forward to your ideas.  --TeaDrinker 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this, "Since consensus does not establish the truth of a scientific hypothesis, it could be considered fallacious to make a consensus claim in a scientific debate." 70.130.209.78 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I am worried that the "it could be considered fallacious..." is too strong and broad. It seems to imply that people generally consider a scientific consensus to be meritless in discussion, when I think the opposite is the case for most readers on science.  A expert consensus can give an indication of what a person would probably conclude if they evaluated all the evidence, and is particualrly useful when that person can not, for reasons of time or training, actually evaluate the evidence themselves.  This last part is particularly true in science, where relevant training is usually extensive and time investment is enormous.  In a more prosaic case, however, suppose your car had a fault.  For reasons of extravagence and conspicious consumption, you take it to 100 mechanics, all of whom tell you the same thing is wrong, say a clogged fuel injector.  While this is certainly not proof positive that the fuel injector is in fact clogged (maybe they are all trying to scam you!), I am well inclined to believe that is the case, especially if I can't evaluate the evidence for myself very well.  The phrasing you propose would seem to imply (up to your use of "could be") that this kind of reasoning is invalid in all circumstances, when it is probably for most people quite reasonable. --TeaDrinker 07:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about adding "when such a claim is used as proof or to silence opposing theories" ? --Childhood&#39;s End 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. 70.130.187.163 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As you say, "this is certainly not proof positive", and that's the point. A fallacy is simply an unsound or misleading argument. If you argue that consensus is indicative of truth, which happens in political debates about science, that is unsound and misleading. Consensus does NOT establish truth. Any argument that suggests otherwise is fallacious, by definition. 70.130.187.163 15:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, but the article should not make it sound like anything but certitude is a bad argument since virtually all arguments (in science, court, etc.) fall well short of that mark. --TeaDrinker 21:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the best wording would contrast this type of fallacy with arguments that actually use the scientific method. You see, consensus arguments are not part of the scientific method. 70.130.182.67 14:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(Returning left, reply to 70.130.182.67) If so, we sould not want to repeat the information that is already in the second sentence of the article. We could go into more depth with regard to the ontological status of expert opinions (there is a literature in philosophy on exactly that question), but I think that would be excessive for the opening paragraph. Perhaps we should focus on improving the philosophy section instead. --TeaDrinker 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement in intro about GW and Evolution
I thought the following statement in the intro could be discussed a bit:

"Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which are not controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[1][2] or climate change[3][4]."

1- Is this statement political by itself?

2- Is this statement really necessary?

If "yes" to 1 or "no" to 2, perhaps this article could be better (and more NPOV) without the statement. It seems to me, at least, that it can be fairly said that the scientific consensus is stronger about gravity than about GW. Thus, perhaps we should avoid taking a position in an article describing what is "scientific consensus" about a politically-heated debate that exists because of the existence of some scientific dissent, as weak as it can be considered to be. One reason why gravity is not debated in the public is that reasonable scientific doubt does not even exists... --Childhood&#39;s End 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, and have removed the entries.-- Nydas (Talk) 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Conversely, I disagree and have restored them. Perhaps there is no great need to be hasty about this. In answer to CE, the statement is a useful illustration. Furthermore, gravity is not an useful illustration at this point because there is neither public nor scientific controversy William M. Connolley 18:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The political statement that is made is implying that there exists no scientific controversy about GW. Yet, the public controversy exists for a reason, even though there is arguably a strong majority view on the issue. Gravity, on the other hand, is an unquestionable example. --Childhood&#39;s End 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The public controversy exists for political reasons. There is some dissent, which is OK because consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Measured by the literature, the dissent is negligible William M. Connolley 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont see how a public controversy about a scientific issue can exist without a minimal scientific grip to support dissent. Or do you assume that if there would exist a minimal scientific doubt about other scientific consensuses that there would not necessarily be a public controversy about it?
 * Besides, let's not forget that the level of certainty about most GW findings is 90%, and that even this level of certainty is subject to some uncertainty. By itself, this should tell us not to use GW as an example of a scientific field free of scientific controversy such as physics are when it comes to gravity. --Childhood&#39;s End 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Public debate vs scientific debate : Original research?
The intro contains the following statement :

"Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which are not controversial within the scientific community"

This statement is then supported by giving the examples of climate change and evolution.

This seems to me a case of WP:SYNT and mostly looks like a clumsy way to introduce the idea that there is a scientific consensus on climate change and evolution.

Two editors reverted the "dubious" tag that I added to the statement and the deletion of the two examples (per talk thread above). I am thus bringing this other issue to the talk page. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Global warming
Although there is considerable political advocacy for the claim that there is no scientific controversy over global warming, nonetheless several prominent scientists have a contrary or contradictory view about several aspects of the idea.

Richard Lindzen of MIT, for one. --Uncle Ed 00:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the pov tag and cn. The consensus is real and the word doesn't mean 100% agreement on all details. Scientific conferences and peer reviewed publications are part of a public discussion of scientific findings, not just reporting the findings. Therefor a citation is hardly needed for such an obvious statement. But then, some seem to have a lack of understanding of how science works. Vsmith 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I must disagree. It seems to me that you should provide a source to support this alleged way of how it is possible to establish a "scientific consensus", provided such a thing exists of course. --Childhood&#39;s End 02:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this very article, "scientific consensus" implies lack of substantial scientifically based doubt by experts in the field. (There can still be a scientific consensus in support of a theory even when substantial numbers of people oppose it for other easons, such as for evolution.)  There is no way that anthropogenic global warming alarmism qualifies, as hundreds of prominent scientists, many experts in the field, dispute it. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
 * Vegasprof (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology...Evolution is a "Law", not a "Theory"
Should evolution be publicly described as a "Scientific Law" or a "Scientific Theory"? I think that both are accurate, but "Scientific Law" would be understood by the general population as a way of communicating what is actually meant by the level of confidence that the current scientific understanding of Evolution is. This is based on an article I read in wired magazine. The link is as follows: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson -Alex.rosenheim 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does the term "Scientific consensus" come from?
I mean, how old is it and was it used first by scientists or...? --Tobias Schmidbauer 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, who coined this term? --77.176.104.151 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some digging on Google Groups (ie: old USENET). Here's the earliest usage I found - May 1984 by Bernard L. Cohen, professor of physics at the University of Pittsburgh - nothing to do with climate btw - but very familiar stuff well worth a read in full... How can a journalist tell who is a "respected scientist" or what is a scientific "consensus" on a subject? It's easy. Call a few randomly chosen high-quality universities, ask to speak to a professor of radiation health, and pop the question. The results would be at least 95% consistent in most cases. When journalists interviewing me question my statements, I always ask them to do this, but none ever has. The usual journalistic line is that the scientific community is split--they imply into equal halves--on the dangers of radiation, with one side dominated by government--or industry-supported scientists fearful of economic reprisal. Note the quotes around 'consensus', suggesting this was an emerging phrase at the time. --Jaymax (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are aware that your original research is utter nonsense - right? Try reading some old fashioned books instead - for instance something about Kuhn . (btw is respected scientist also an "emerging phrase"? ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim, please review WP:AGF and then re-read what I wrote. For one, this is a talk page - I was seeking to share whatever info I found relating to a valid question asked on this TALK page  -  Your reference to WP:OR in this context is the utter nonsense here.  Do you see me either suggesting we add this to the article, or suggesting that my answer is authoritative?  If you have a USEFUL comment to make relating to the origins of the term, a usable reference would actually be appreciated - because, surprisingly, the reason I spent a couple of hours digging around USENET watching the term go from non-usage (there), to appearance, to common usage, was because I was interested for myself and decided to share what I found.  Your contribution of the entire works of an author is not helpful - Should you be able to suggest a title and chapter where the phrase is first used in his works, I'm sure many others as well as myself would be more grateful for your input.  On a final note, it's worth remembering that much early USENET use was by the scientific community, and so I believe this does say something interesting about the emergence of the term, at least beyond those writing or reviewing books about the philosophy of science. --Jaymax (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take back some of that - the google books link is indeed quite interesting. Esp changing the text to the full phrase. You could perhaps have proffered that when the question was first asked however.  And a bit more for the smiley face... --Jaymax (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And my very last on this subtopic, in the same vein as originally (I don't know why google books didn't occur to me as well) the first use of the entire phrase recorded in google books dates from scientific titles around 1883-1886 --Jaymax (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And WHAT is scientific consensus?
I tell you: it's PERSONAL ideas of certain people. The fact that those people usually (not always as they MUST) have a scientific approach WON'T donate them more credibility with regard to their PERSONAL ideas. Either you prove them or they have NOTHING SCIENTIFIC. But it's nice to chat about nothing, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.38.68 (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit for discussion (more on Popper's concepts)
First, congratulations to the collaborating editors, the article is evolving very good. I did a small contribution on the references format to use Wiki std, I will do the rest later on. Second, I wanto to suggest that more referencing from reliable sources is requered in order to keep WP:NPOV and to avoid WP:OR. Really the definition of "consensus" will have more weight if properly referenced, and the following sentence clearly looks OR: "Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, and peer review." Where does that come from? That's why I requested a citation. In general, the quality of the article can improve if more citation are provided.

Now my proposed edit, which I want the regular editors collaborating here to comment about. The section "How consensus can change over time" is really good, the summary of Popper's and Kuhn's ideas is quite to the point. However, because Popper's concept of falsifiability might not be so easy to understand to the general public, and, considering that more weight was given to Kuhn's ideas, I proposed to add at the end of the paragraph on Popper ideas, a citation, taken from "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", Part II, section 11 on Methodological Rules as Conventions (pp. 32 in the 2007 edition), which in simpler terms applies quite well to "consensus" in the sense that has been used lately, but that makes crystal clear, as the leading paragraph already says, that "Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method". The proposed edit is the following: I do prefer a transcription because I think the ideas as written by Pope are very clear to anyone. Mariordo (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When considering methodological rules, Popper said that "... the game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game." As a second example of methodological rules he added: "Once a hypothesis has been proposed and tested, and has proved its mettle, it may not be allowed to drop out without 'good reason'. A 'good reason' may be, for instance: replacement of the hypothesis by another which is better testable; or the falsification of one of the consequences of the hypothesis."

Philosophy section is nonsense
The intro to this article is really good, but then it immediately drops into complete nonsense and obvious original research with the very next section. I've studied a lot of philosophy of science, and have never read anything like the ideas presented in the Philosophy section of this article. Consensus as the goal of science? Maybe my education is lacking, in which case please somebody provide some references for these statements. Otherwise, I'm going to rewrite the whole section sometime next week. --Sapphic (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the information seems to have come from this reference:

Yogesh Malhotra, Role Of Science In Knowledge Creation: A Philosophy Of Science Perspective. 1994.

That, in turn, seems to be based mostly on the work of John Ziman. I think somebody like Thomas Kuhn would be a more appropriate (and relevant) reference, and will try to incorporate his views into the section, as well as removing the remaining original research. --Sapphic (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Kuhn will be a much better source. Little by little the OR remaining in the article must be removed.Mariordo (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As difficult as the philosophy of science is, the "philosophy of scientific consensus" is vastly more so. This section on "philosophy" is essentially unsourced except for a reference to a very brief and highly speculative opinion piece that, as of August 14, 2008, can be found here. Therefore, I'm removing the section on "philosophy" immediately upon posting this comment. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputes and controversies
Is there such a thing as a scientific dispute or a scientific controversy? As I write this, both links in the previous sentence are red. I wonder whether the lack of an article indicates merely a lack of interest on the part of Wikipedia volunteers. Or does it reflect the reality of modern science (note: this redirects to Science) that everything is proceeding splendidly, and that the scientific consensus is disturbed only by the politicization of science (see manufactured controversy)?

Do not imagine that I am POV pushing here. I don't want Wikipedia to start taking sides on any particular issue. Nor would I want it to make a judgment on the objectivity of the scientific mainstream. I ask only that if there are multiple views on any of this, we would work together to describe these views fairly. The last thing I would want is for Wikipedia to endorse a viewpoint. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If we find reliable sources for that, It would be interesting to have an article on disputes and controversies within the scientific community.--Sum (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The focus should be on new evidence and novel concepts changing scientific thinking rather than some POVish controversies and disputes. Consider the source. Articles on "disputes" and "controversies" tend toward POV nightmarisms. Vsmith (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Consequences?
The "consequences" section seems to be a ridiculous non-sequitur. I suggest it be removed. For one thing, that is not a typical consequence of denying scientific consensus, it's very specifically the result of a person with a lot of power denying knowledge we have about a deadly and contagious disease - denying, for example, the existence of quarks or macroscale evolution would not have NEARLY as shocking results. The whole thing just seems to be a scare tactic - listen to the consensus or else. What is the encyclopedic value of this section? It doesn't tell you anything about consensus as a topic. Paul Ganssle (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There could also be good consequences. For instance ignoring gender differences has led to equal rights and opportunities for women. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess? I am not sure what you mean by that, but I can imagine some good consequences to ignoring scientific consensus, especially given the fact that consensus is subject to change over time. I just think it hasn't been established that the consequences listed here are a typical example or even that these are the consequences of him ignoring the scientific consensus - post hoc ergo propter hoc? Not that I'm saying it was a good idea, but it's basically an anecdote and I don't think it really belongs in the article. Since it's been almost a week and I've only gotten a positive response, I'm going to pull the offending section. If you object to this, maybe give your reasons here. Paul Ganssle (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Creationism
I've removed this for reworking because, as it stands, it seems to say that there is no scientific consensus on evolution, or that the existence of such a consensus is in doubt. Nevertheless a discussion of evolution would be beneficial to the article because the sociopolitical debate on creationism is so large in the United States where many English speaking readers live.


 * Many creationist organizations have argued that there is considerable debate over the theory of evolution, and have used this to justify their public policy arguments that evolution not be considered the only possibility for education in scientific curriculum.


 * Opponents of these creationists, such as the late biologist Stephen Jay Gould, have claimed that the creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate within the scientific community, stating that the debate with the scientific community is not about whether "if" evolution occurred, but instead is about "how" it occurred. Again, in this instance "scientific consensus" is seen, if it exists, as mandating a certain form of public policy (i.e., that there is no scientific basis for the teaching of alternatives to Darwinist theories of evolution in public schools), and disputing whether or not a consensus exists in the scientific community is one way of combating this mandate.

I'll write a draft to replace this. --TS 19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggested rewriting:


 * The theory of evolution through natural selection is an accepted part of the science of biology, to the extent that few observations in biology can be understood without reference to natural selection and common descent. In the socio-political arena, however, it is controversial, mainly because it appears to contradict some literal interpretations of religious texts.  Opponents of evolution argue for the teaching of religious-based alternatives to the science of evolution in science classes, by claiming that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.  The wedge strategy, an ambitious plan to supplant scientific materialism seen as inimical to religion, with a religion-friendly theistic science, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.


 * This makes the same point, without using innuendo to imply that evolution lacks consensus. --TS 19:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the sentiment is admirable, but the execution seems POV. I suggest cutting out what could be seen as speculation as to the motives (the religious stuff). For example, I doubt that the Discovery Institute would be willing to admit that they take umbrage with evolution because it contradicts religious texts. I think the way to rewrite it is to just clean up the original language to be more clear. The intent of the original language seems to be to convey that it is possible for there to be debate within the scientific community on topics upon which there is a consensus (i.e. they can all accept that evolution is fact and still not have all the kinks). Your wording removes this.


 * Additionally, you've introduced a number of unsourced statements about the motivations of evolution's "opponents" (a somewhat monolithic term for a pretty varied group). If the new wording is kept, I strongly suggest providing citations for these statements.Paul Ganssle (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The religious stuff is a specific reference to a specific campaign explicitly intended to discredit scientific naturalism and replace it with theistic science (the wedge strategy). It isn't conjecture or speculation. This is what the creationists who came up with the wedge strategy said themselves.


 * Far from being unwilling to admit that they "take umbrage with evolution because it contradicts religious texts", they explicitly state that: "the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end." (speech by Philip Johnson, principal architect of the Wedge Strategy).


 * If you can identify specific statements by me that you think need sourcing, I'll add the sources, although I'd prefer to keep the text uncluttered. This is all described at copious length in the Wikipedia article I link to.


 * I think you're right that in removing Gould's response I missed the sense of that response, which is that while there is debate within science on evolution it is not correctly characterized by the creationists. That should be added back. --TS 10:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the current revision is a significant improvement on the previous one. My main concerns were mostly with the claims about the specific motives of evolution opponents. I think that it portrayed creationists as a single monolithic entity hoping to preserve literal accounts of creation, when in fact there are a number of types of creationists, some of whom hope to preserve literal accounts of creation (young-earthers), and some who are just trying to hold on to a supernaturalist worldview (like the Intelligent Design people). Not matter how tempting it is to say that the DI people are clinging to creationism because they want to preserve literal accounts from genesis, I think it would be POV to claim that they are being disingenuous when they propose things like "Intelligent Design". I would be willing to accept claims to that effect if they are sourced and come from someone else's mouth, e.g. "In Dover v. Kitzmiller, this was decided[Source]" or, as was done here, "Steven Jay Gould say that the misunderstanding comes from..." Steven Jay Gould can say stuff and it's encyclopedic to mention his opinion, but I don't think it's encyclopedic to just state his opinion as if it were fact. Paul Ganssle (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to determine scientific consensus
I've removed this new section because it seems to be just a paragraph promoting two external websites. --TS 22:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

fact tags
You need a better reason to add a fact tag to states other than the fact that there wasn't one there previously. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The main portion of the article has no sources for the definition itself. Where did the information in this article come from?  How strange. FX (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "I don't know where this information came from." Is by itself not a valid enough reason to add fact tags. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your lack of input is noted. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that?FX (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not participate in an edit war with you. Your fact tags are not warranted and will not be included in the article if your only counter is "I NEEDZ SAWCE!". 216.96.150.33 (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources are important
How about this one? http://www.123exp-science.com/t/01554194104/

FX (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Add that to the pertinent part of the body if you find it relevant. The tags in the lead are unnecessary and after you have added your source you need to remove them. 216.96.150.33 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Magisterium
I think that the word Magisterium would be appropriate when talking about the scientific community, in this article, in other articles and in other writings and publications, because of the consensus approach within scientific circles that often mirrors that of closed communities (cf Consensus Patrum). I think that this was Paul Feyerabend's fundamental epistemological criticism on the pretensions of modern science, namely that of constituting a scientific society by using the same kind of social control tools as that of religion. Feyerabend compares Science to a Church or Community and cynically says that the only reason that there have been conflicts between Church and Science is because both of them are structured like Churches. ADM (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a chilling look at a consensus: [Should Evolution be taught in school?]. The consensus opinion appears to be that Evolution is 'just a theory' and a shaky one at that. That is what 'consensus' will buy you. Mercifully, at least in my country of Canuckistan, we teach Biology using evidence and reason. Appeals to 'consensus' have no legitimate place in Science. DeepNorth (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Opinion vs Scientific Consensus
The term 'Scientific Opinion' links to this article, but the two terms are not synonymous.

Scientific Opinion, much like 'Public Opinion' is 'several'. There is no singular 'The Scientific Opinion', whereas there MAY be a singular 'The Scientific Consensus'. Scientific Opinion is (presumably) opinion formed through the scientific process. Often, scientific opinions are published positions held by scientific bodies representing the consensus view of THAT organisations scientists. Much like Public Opinion, you can talk about "the scientific opinion being divided" or an analysis of "current scientific opinion" but you can't say "the scientific opinion of global warming is that it's man-made"; just like you can't say "the public opinion of capital punishment is that it's wrong" - stick the word 'majority' into either and you get a valid sentence, regardless of whether or not it's a true one.

The phrase 'The Scientific Opinion' is being sometimes misused when what is meant is 'The Scientific Consensus' and, since the term links to this article, I think that it's important that either the linkage is removed or this article sets out plainly the difference between "Scientific Opinion" which is 'several' by definition, and "Scientific Consensus" which is 'singular' by definition (and derived from the consensus of "Scientific Opinion".)Jaymax (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose to remove the redirect from 'scientific opinion' to this article, for the reasons above. I hope that in time, 'scientific opinion' will get it's own article. Jaymax (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With no objections raised, I have made this change. Scientific opinion now redirects to opinion. I think it would be great if those better placed than me to properly extend the definition of 'scientific opinion' (which seems to be a fairly widely understood, widely used term, with basically no definitions to be found online) could do so. --Jaymax (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bayesian probability
Apparently the Bayesian probability see also link was judged not relevant to this article and removed. That is unfortunate. As I understand it, there are two types of probability, and when consensus is made on available evidence, that is a Bayesian. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Form of Argument or Existent as a Thing
I will start bluntly, the introduction should reflect the use of "scientific consensus" as a phrase used in argument, cast in terms of logic. The phrase "scientific consensus" is used almost exclusively in argument, particularly as an appeal to authority or argumentum ad populum, both red herring fallacies. Outside of its use in argument, it largely does not exist; however, there seem to be some editors who wish to portray "scientific consensus" as some sort of entity which is constantly polled and evaluated, which it most certainly is not. About the only two polls my scientific community are ever asked, are whether we like MatLab, and which universities have the best name recognition. This article is part of the Rational Skepticism project, and for some unknown reason, is within the Medicine project. Rational Skepticism is about logical argument and evaluation. In keeping with that theme, "scientific consensus" should be introduced in terms of its use in logic.

The way "scientific consensus" was formerly introduced, as a constantly evolving majority opinion, is something which any member of the "scientific community" would recognize as something which does not exist. A poll is a one-shot deal. A constantly evolving majority opinion would require constant polling, which is not done. It would also require constant re-evaluation of a constantly changing community.

Identifying "scientific consensus" as a term used in argument. That is a constant, and something everyone can agree on. Magic pumpkin (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is plainly evident that defining "scientific consensus"  as "the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study" is incorrect, as such "collective" opinions are rarely, if ever, determined.   Defined in this manner, "scientific consensus" is at best a theoretical measurement (that a majority opinion exists) made upon a hypothetical construct (the "community").  It is further debatable whether an informal and involuntary grouping of scientists can even be called a "community".  What is not debatable, is that "scientific consensus" does exist as a term used in argument, in an attempt to lend "weight" to one side, an argument from authority or argumentum ad populum.  If "warp drive" was introduced as an existent means to move spaceships, I'm certain every editor here would agree to its change, to introduce "warp drive" as a fictional plot tool.  As currently defined, "scientific consensus" is almost as fictional as that warp drive; both might exist theoretically, but consensus has been measured, on occasion.  The intro should be changed to conform with the normal use and theory of "scientific consensus".Magic pumpkin (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

''Scientific consensus is a phrase often used when arguing a position which might be scientifically evaluated, often invoked as an appeal to authority or popularity. Theoretically, scientific consensus is the predominant opinion of a loosely defined community of scientists engaged in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement among the majority, not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not part of a scientific argument, nor is its measurement part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus might be measured by using appropriate scientific methods, and altered by scientific arguments. Reliable measurement of scientific consensus requires the proper identification and canvassing of the individual members of the community, which is often complicated by its informal structure and fluctuating membership.''

If that is true, I'm dissapointed. I really expected federations to have implemented a procedure and would have a polling tool and system in place and would have a list of claims it supports. It would be valuable to insert your viewpoints if others confirm. --SvenAERTS (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there ought to be a section discussing the possible mis-use of 'Scientific consensus' as an appeal to authority. It appears this way as "overwhelming scientific consensus" says thus-and-so therefore this-or-that is wrong, without discussing the merits. RVscholar (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The only misuse of the word scientific consensus I can think of is when pseudoscience people claim there is consensus on some issue (when there is not). Also it is not always a fallacy to have an appeal to authority in informal logic if there is scientific consensus on something. More generally for the people above: Also scientific consensus is measured typically by looking at papers produced about the topic in question (such as in reviews) or by seeing what the current consensus is at conferences, since people in a particularly field don't all have membership of a common organization polling would be unfair/ineffective. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we to conclude from the above discussion that there is in fact no scientific consensus? Likeamanshand (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * An appeal to authority is trying to use authority to silence opposition regardless of whether a consensus is true. A quick survey of WP pages shows that scientific consensus or similar phrases, is often used as an appeal to authority.


 * Creation Museum
 * In contrast to the overwhelming scientific consensus, exhibits promote young Earth creationist claims, including the idea that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted, and that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.


 * Center for Science and Culture
 * These positions have been rejected by the scientific community, which identifies intelligent design as pseudoscientific neo-creationism and whereas the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus.


 * List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design
 * These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution."


 * International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
 * Evolution is overwhelmingly endorsed within the scientific community while intelligent design has been roundly rejected as unscientific.


 * Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns
 * The response of the scientific community has been to reiterate that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.


 * The whole purpose of these sentences is to show who is bigger and who is smaller. Might makes right.  There is no discussion of why some hold one thing and some another.  This is pure appeal to authority.  RVscholar (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, an argument from authority this is not always fallacious. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that creationism is a load of bollocks. The views of creationists on this aspect of science should be put into the perspective of what the scientific consensus is. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, an argument from authority is is always fallacious, because in logic you must argue from premises to conclusions. While it is possible to use fallacious arguments in favor of true statements (e.g. we know that evolution is true because the scientific consensus tells us so), that does not make them valid. I think that the confusion is that while the statement "The scientific consensus is that evolution happened, therefore evolution happened" (or any, possibly more subtle, variation on that theme) is a pure argument from authority, the statement, "In general, scientists arriving at some form of 'consensus' has been the greatest predictor of the truth of a statement. Therefore, in the absence of your ability to directly analyze the lines of reasoning that led them to that conclusion, you should update your concept of the Bayesian probability to reflect the increased likelihood that their statement is correct.", is not fallacious, and is in fact sound reasoning. In general, concepts of consensus (weighted by the reliability of individual scientists, etc), can inform your Bayesian inference of the truth of a statement, but they cannot be used as logical proof, and in fact they can be dangerous in some sense due to the phenomenon of Information cascade. Paul Ganssle (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"No, an argument from authority is is always fallacious," Rather than point out that you're wrong, and suggesting you look at the links cited in the "Argument from authority" page on Wikipedia, I will instead simply offer the obvious comical response: "Says who?"
 * Perhaps it's a semantic distinction that I would make that others wouldn't, but according to the Argument from authority page, an argument from authority has the following form:


 * Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
 * A says P about subject matter S.
 * Therefore, P is correct.


 * This is clearly a fallacious argument, because the conclusion (P is correct) does NOT follow from the premise. Note that it says "most of what authority A has to say ... is correct" - that implies that it is not NECESSARILY true that because P is in the set of "things A has to say on subject matter S" it is also in the set "things that are true."


 * The non-fallacious form of the argument looks like this:


 * In this context, past experience is a good guide to our future experiences. (Inductive premise)
 * X% of what authority A has to say about subject matter S is correct.
 * A says P about subject matter S.
 * Therefore, barring other evidence, P has an X% chance of being correct.


 * In this case, the conclusion (4) follows directly from the premises (1, 2, and 3). Heuristically, for a valid premise 1 and large X%, the difference in result should not be consequential, but when you're speaking purely from a logical perspective, the pure argument from authority is fallacious. 0x0077BE (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Logical Fallacy
I have added that "scientific consensus" is a logical fallacy on two counts - argumentum ad populum and argument from authority. I also declare that this fact is going to remain prominently in the introductory paragraphs until someone can disprove this to be the case. 130.56.71.53 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I've removed it. Please provide WP:RS to support your claim and introduce such in the article body prior to "declaring" such in the lead section. Vsmith (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is describing what the scientific concensus means, the article does not claim it is a scientific argument, in fact the lede states: "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument". I also find it peculiar that your appeal through argumentum ad ignorantiam is itself a fallacy. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Scientific_consensus
I'm a bit concerned that of the 5 examples listed for Kuhn's theory, none are referenced as belonging into that context, and 3 (arguably even 4) definitely post-date The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Moreover, the whole section seems to be mostly original research. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole section looks rather dodgy. I have a copy at home and will compare it tonight William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the whole section as OR . None of the examples are in Kuhn (e.g. ) and neither is "confirmation bias" itself.
 * It looks like this pap first came in during an earlier round of the GW wars in 2005; that one edit may have been good-faith, but the rest of the editing around then from now-banned folk wasn't William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dangers of consensus, Michael Crichton
Nothing here mentions the dangers of consensus "science." In fact, it appears to be blindly supported as every attempt to change this article to rightly point out that an appeal to consensus is a logical fallacy have been deleted. The "Politicization of science" section even appears itself to be political and aimed at attacking those who fall outside the consensus, particularly regarding global warming and evolution. The author notes evolution is "one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science." Whether or not this is true or evolution is true is irrelevant; the author here is simply reiterating consensus and dismissing the findings of other scientists with the same qualifications that have used the same method but reach differing conclusions, such as Hugh Ross, who himself has shown evolutionary theory to be politicized.

As Michael Crichton warns, "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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.43.106 (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You can have all the allegedly verifiable data imaginable. It still takes a willingness by others to look at your data, and your methods, and accept your results.  This produces consensus.   At least, until someone else comes along with new thinking and new data which overturns some aspect of the paradigm you helped to launch.  At least for awhile.  After all, being the Don Quixote who successfully takes down a windmill is the holy grail of the business of science - those are the people who get Nobel Prizes, promotion, and endless streams of grant revenues.
 * In this modern age, the longer a scientific consensus remains unrefuted, the more likely it is to be true. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In this modern age, the longer a scientific consensus remains unrefuted, the more likely it is to be true. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "... the author here is simply reiterating consensus and ...", no. Science is not about opinions. When the author states "one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science", he is referring to the evidence available for evolution, it is not about consensus. Science is not a matter of opinions. This article is about the fact that often there is a consensus among scientists about specific issues. Considering that fringe proponents of, for example, global warming denialism, often claim that no consensus exists amongst scientists, position statements merely attempt to show that a consensus view of scientists exists and what that consensus is. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Scientific consensus on the non-danger of gsm use?
Can anybody help in this, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health#Scientific_consensus_or_not.3F Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Changes by IP
An IP editor has edited in three times now the same edit and apparently refuses to come to the talk page even after he was reverted two times and WP:BRD pointed out clearly. I won't revert again but wouldn't mind if some other editor did. Regards. Gaba (talk)  20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the ip and requested they present their concerns here. Vsmith (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP (not me) reverted again, and I've now reverted it back, and repeated the request for them to explain why they consider their wording to be an improvement. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is a term "Anonymous" to describe the so-called "IP editor", I don't like being called IP. Secondly, it is not me edited in three times on the same edit but you reverted my edit twice for no good reason, i don't think it is my responsibility to open a section in talk page. i.e. Can i go revert a random edit and ask the victim to open a talk page? Lastly, since more people come revert my edit (again for no real reason), so i buy the "consensus" part and stop reverting your rvs now. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it is, See the be bold, if reverted then discuss cycle known as BRD. I note you only joined us here after I requested semi-protection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, so you can revert any edit and enforce the victim to open a talk page? I don't think you really addressed my point. Let's say if there is a troll, who go revert your edits for no reason and keep reverting your rvs, then you ask the troll to stop and explain on talk page, but you don't ask yourself if the revert is absurd. If the troll doesn't stop, then you open a talk page because there is no choice, and you discuss how to deal with the troll. The situation here is that you acted like a troll because you revert my edit with no real reason.
 * Also, you sounded like WP:BRD above everything, but Wikipedia also tells people to use common sense, not to mention WP:IGNORE. Now, I can wait and give you time to criticize(or improve) my edit and if there is no good reason again, then you are just trolling me and I will revert it again. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you add something and people disagree, the burden is on you to justify the edit. It's just logical. You are not a "victim" if your edits are judged not to improve the encyclopedia. As Wikipedia is a community of editors rather than a group of authors, there is no room for egos; communication and discussion (and ultimately consensus) are essential. Otherwise Wikipedia would be a chaotic mess of profanity, spam, and bias. --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right, but you forgot revert is an edit too. You revert an edit and people disagree, the burden is on you to justify the edit. Where is the reason you disagree, I can't find it anywhere. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. That's why the B and R are separated on the BRD page. Articles reach stages of a sort of consensus-based equilibrium. Controversial edits at that point constitute "being bold" (sticking with the same language). Reverting back to that equilibrium is not the same thing. --Rhododendrites (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You come up with a lot of your theory which I don't agree, but since you insist on the BRD page, I find WP:REVEXP very interesting when going through the BRD page. Clearly I requested reasons to refute my edit, which no one did. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure 14.198.220.253 gets the point and is simply trolling us given his apparent knowledge of other WP guidelines. He could (and should) have used this section to explain his edits and instead used it to play the victim. Advise to 14.198.220.253: if you revert again with no consensus you'll mostlikely get blocked. Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  00:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Play the victim? Gaba you are driving us away from consensus and i advise you not to use harassment and threat again. We have revision history and there is simply no way I can get away with "playing victim", why don't you reason the edits instead? My first edit is "Improve wordings", the following revert is replied by "cn tags ok, but wording not improvement", which negates my argument, thus gives no explanation or whatsoever, so I reverted it with "POV". Then it is you start talking about "consensus" and fake it being a reason. If you don't refute my edit with reasons, then I will proceed with my edit. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ip 14..., you were asked to discuss your concerns re: the content changes you wanted. However, I see no such discussion - only complaining. Which leads me to agree with Gaba, and as there is nothing here about improving the article the section will be closed. Vsmith (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, you don't censor me without give it at least a day or two for my reply. Gaba is evidently complaining and it is me who want discussion and explicitly asked for criticism to my edit, which no one did. I don't know how you come to agree with Gaba except for trolling.--14.198.220.253 (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No censoring, just hid the unproductive griping. What you need to do here - is to explain how your preferred wording improves the article without off-topic complaining. Discuss the content not other editors. Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absurd. You come revert my edit without any legitimate reason, and I come here giving you chance. Discuss the content not other editors. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Vsmith is right. You are not responding properly, and thus you are not showing a positive learning curve. I am restoring the hatting. If you remove it and/or continue this disruption, I suggest a block or topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No. You are not responding properly, and thus you are not showing a positive attitude toward consensus. To achieve consensus, I expressed my concerns, answered everyone's reply and requested you to challenge and discuss my edit(as some of you also suggested) but none of you replies. What i've received instead is utter ignorance, threat, harassment and disruption. This reply not only serves as justification on my edit and rvs but also justify my behavior and reasonable approach toward consensus, as I was being attacked. You can't stop me from discussion and revert for no reason or I will report you regardless of what kind of ban you misuse. Your disruptive behaviors(or WP:VAND, WP:TROLL) come with evidences and list as follows:
 * * Disruption: NewsAndEventsGuy disrupts an edit without explaining his revert, it is required as stated in consensus. His disruptive behavior attempts to either block my edit or start an edit-war (as stated in WP:REVEXP, part of BRD). Nevertheless, it is an all-out against consensus. To achieve consensus, I questioned the reason behind NewsAndEventsGuy's POV, and requested him (and everyone) to explains the reason against my edit as suggested in BRD (or consensus). No one replies and I am still waiting.
 * * Gaming the system: Gaba p disrupts my edit with the reason "consensus". In other words, he reverts my edit without discussion and explanation to justify his action first (as required in consensus and WP:BRD), I have no responsibility to open a talk and justify my revert due to his misuse and trolling behavior, i reverted with "Gaba since when you become consensus, pls see WP:BRD" and he ignored. His disruptive and abusive behavior is against consensus and deserves a ban. In fact, this trick is used so often that it is stated clearly as abuse known as BRD misuse or revert ninja, which also means I don't have to follow BRD due to his misuse. There is an explicit rule Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" covers his edit summary and he clearly violated it. Therefore, I can revert, I have no responsibility to justify my edit, justify my reverts and justify my attitude. Imo, Gaba also games the system, this violation worse than going against consensus, enough to justify any mere "not respond properly" or "no consensus" action(if exists at all) of the victim(s), you should question his revert according to BRD too.
 * * Threat and harassment: Gaba p's misuse on BRD was reverted by me quickly and he is well-informed to follow BRD as I told in edit summary("Gaba since when you become consensus, pls see WP:BRD"), which means he has to provide explanation against my edit in edit summary or talk page but he didn't. What he did instead, he went on a rant and threatened me as if I am the one who reverted for no explanation, his disruptive behavior moves us away from consensus. No one provided any justification (as I requested for consensus) to refute my edit so far but disruption continues as if I am the one who violated BRD, ignores my arguments and moves us away from consensus, eg. NewsAndEventsGuy(I note you only joined us here after I requested semi-protection.) , Gaba p(Advise to 14.198.220.253: if you revert again with no consensus you'll mostlikely get blocked. Cheers.) , Brangifer(not responding properly, disruption, I suggest a block or topic ban.)...etc.
 * Lastly, I have no responsibility to achieve any consensus with trolls and clarify my edit which cannot be reverted unless backed by explanation, WP:DRNC. If you fail to refute my edit and lack incentive to do so, then I will proceed with my edit as the policies follow. If you game the system, threaten and ban me for no reason, then I will report you. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Drama mode off. WP:FOC; I have prepped an ANI and am holding it in my sandbox pending the IP's choice about restoring vs discussing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL, Brangifer hatted this section and wanted to end it with ban, if I don't justify my action, then no matter whatever i said, your ban seems just. Therefore, I see no point requiring every posts in tree FOC, WP:UCS, but you can "hat" the reply if you know how.
 * Back on content, if you don't explain your revert, then I revert my edit back. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Threats to continue your edit warring won't help you. We edit collaboratively here, and if you won't do that, then you don't belong at Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have left a (hopefully) clear explanation of why his/her behavior is edit warring, along with a final warning, for anonymous editor 14.* on their talk page. If the edit warring continues, please notify me if I'm around or post at WP:ANEW. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ThanksNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)