Talk:Scientific consensus/Archive 3

Popper / Kuhn
I don't think


 * Most models of scientific change rely on new data produced by scientific experiment. Karl Popper proposed that since no amount of experiments could ever prove a scientific theory, but a single experiment could disprove one, all scientific progress should be based on a process of falsification... Among the most influential challengers of this approach was Thomas Kuhn...

is right. Kuhn's theory is a theory of how science, actually in practice, changes. Popper's theory is a theory of the logical structure of scientific theory. I think its an error to believe they are in opposition. Kuhn might be said to challenge those who naively believe Popper's theory describes the actual evolution of science, but that's different William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In his work Popper emphasised demarcating a scientific theory from pseudoscience/non-science based on the nature of the theories proposed. I don't remember him emphasising anything about scientific progress itself when discussing falsification (I can't recall off the top of my head anything from The Logic of Scientific Discovery, which is cited, that discusses it). Perhaps my reading of the material was off, or there is some specific work I didn't read (as I see the wikipedia article on popper discusses ideas on progress). Kuhn emphasised, in his work about demarcation, the importance of the culture the community adopted in their approach, while largely but no completely agreeing with Popper. If I recall I think Kuhn believed that Popper's type of reasoning, of rejecting something through the criteria of falsification, only really applied during paradigm shifts where the scientist became more like a philosopher, and most work was done as "normal science" in standard periods. So he didn't dismiss Popper, he just didn't think it was required for most work in practice. Thagard put emphasis on progress. Thagard combined both Popper and Kuhn's views about theory and culture while also emphasising that there should be a history of progress. I've written in more detail here with the sources given: Astrology_and_science (where Kuhn,Popper, Thagard use Astrology as the quintessential example of pseudoscience for demarcation). So it may be worth mentioning Thagard more so in relation to progress. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * William M. Connolley, I think you have a point. The statement seems a bit too dogmatic. Maybe it can be softened a bit while still recognizing the contributions of both (or all three) men. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarification: Popper is not talking about the logical structure of scientific theories but rather the epistemology of theories. Kuhn's objection is that falsification does not work this way in actual science.  Anomalies must accumulate during normal science that lead to revolutionary changes in science (i.e., theory replacement).  So, Kuhn was a challenger of Popper's purely philosophical analysis.I am One of Many (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If one is talking about actual practice, I would think the sociology of science is inherently bettered positioned to address it than philosophy. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Feyerabend
This:


 * Lastly, some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained that scientific consensus is purely idiosyncratic and maintains no relationship to any outside truth. 

doesn't belong in the "Change over time section". Its seems to trivial for the lede, and there's nowhere else to put it. Personally I think his stuff is bollocks anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. As far as I can see Feyerabend occupies a very small minority position in the extent of his conclusions, with Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy referring to him as an "imaginative maverick" . I also couldn't find where consensus is mentioned in the book, google comes up empty: . IRWolfie- (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert by I am One of Many
The minor edit on the line "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method." should be converted to "Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument, and it is not the scientific method." and it is an improvement for WP:CLARITY, which is also our rule on WP:MoS.

"Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument." is more clear and concise than "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument.", firstly, "by itself" is unnecessary. Secondly, the meaning is the same but the latter leaves the readers (and me) in doubt. "Scientific consensus is not by myself(?) scientific argument.", "Scientific consensus is not by yourself(?) scientific argument.", "Scientific consensus is not by science(?) a scientific argument." or "Scientific consensus is by science(?) a scientific argument." ..etc.

"it is not a scientific method." is more clear and concise than "it is not part of the scientific method.", firstly, if X is not part of Y, then X is just not (part of all parts of) Y. Secondly, given X is not Y, when you put "part of" in the sentence, you leave the readers (and me) in doubt on "which part?" "Can X be Y?" ..etc.

Next, I have to clarify that it seems that I am One of Many didn't assume good faith and falsely claim my edit "good faith edit" and ninja-reverted my edit. Anyone with poor writing style can make obscure sentences, unnecessary words, and maybe distort the original meaning(aka. weasel words).

His counterargument, "descriptive of the relationship between consensus and scientific methods" as explained clearly above is "unnecessarily descriptive" to distort the original meaning, and violates our rule and usual practice as stated in WP:MoS --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see those as weasel words. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument for a claim, but it is certainly part of a general argument.  For example, in climate change, scientific consensus is part of the argument but is not by itself a scientific argument for climate changes.  Scientific consensus is not a scientific method, but scientific consensus is crucial for determining which methods are acceptable.  So you see, these issues are not as black and white as you with to make them.I am One of Many (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Then? Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument? And scientific consensus is not a scientific method? So you see, these issues are not as blackwhite as you with to make them. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To show that I did respond to your argument, my response "Then?" questions that you didn't respond to my argument (and my edit). I ended the response with clear and concise argument that "Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument? And scientific consensus is not a scientific method?" in respond to your confusion, which also appears exactly the same as my edit, so it also justifies my edit as a clear and concise improvement. To show that, I quote and address your words, so you can see for yourself:
 * "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument for a claim, but it is certainly part of a general argument."
 * In my edit, the line (in both version), "Scientific consensus is not (by itself) a scientific argument.", the subject is "scientific argument" instead of "general argument" and it is not objectionable for anyone with a pair of eyes. Therefore, you didn't respond to the edit and show that you hardly pay attention to my edit and also ninja-reverted my edit. You are not showing a positive learning curve.
 * "For example, in climate change, scientific consensus is part of the argument but is not by itself a scientific argument for climate changes."
 * How about,
 * "For example, in climate change, scientific consensus is part of the (general) argument but is not a scientific argument for climate changes."
 * First, I can't see how does the meaning differ. Second, it doesn't matter whether it differs or not, you have to compare the two in respond to my argument.
 * You did show your interest in using the weasel(or noise) words, but you didn't respond to the deletion of the noise words "by itself".
 * "Scientific consensus is not a scientific method, but scientific consensus is crucial for determining which methods are acceptable."
 * I agree with you on the former, but the latter doesn't serve as justification to how "part of" should be added to confuse the reader(?). So you see, you still didn't respond to my argument except that you also used my line. Please show us how the deletion of "part of" and "by itself" don't make the sentence more clear and concise, and address my arguments on my first post. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * IP 14, you also changed from
 * "''not part of the scientific method"
 * to
 * "not a scientific method"
 * with two objectionable results. First the usual expression, I thought, is " the scientific method".  If you wish to say " a scientific method" first please show us RSs that identify the group of scientific methods of which consensus is not, according to you, "a" member.   Second, regarding the words "by itself" I agree with, and I don't believe your response really addressed his argument. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy, you are not responding to my argument. It is also not the first time you revert my edit and avoid discussion, you are not showing a positive learning curve.
 * First the unnecessarily definite quantification "the", I thought, refers to this scientific method. If you wish to say some other "scientific method" first please show us RSs that identify the group of scientific methods of which consensus is not, according to you, "the" and "a" differs. Second, regarding the words "by itself" you drop only an agreement, and I don't believe your response really addressed my argument. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. The edit was not an improvement, and it was not a "minor" edit. The revert was proper. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I don't think your agreement serves any value to the discussion, you came drop an agreement without even a response on why my edit is not an improvement. Please WP:FOC. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

, will you agree to go with me (and anyone else who wishes) to WP:THIRD? Or is this thread a bit of disruptive obfuscation? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You decide, because it looks like you refuse or give up discussion unless we go through either one of the process, yet I responded to everyone's arguments, meaning I am waiting for response from you. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thank you, 14.* for explaining in more detail your rationale for the changes you want to make. That is helpful. Regarding the first one, the removal of "by itself" -- I can see how "by itself" looks unnecessary and confusing, but on the other hand, I can see how it is important to make it clear that "scientific consensus" is a legitimate piece of evidence in various arguments, and "by itself" is an attempt to do that. 14.* -- do you have a suggestion about how that could be conveyed more clearly than using "by itself"? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "scientific consensus" is a legitimate piece of evidence in various arguments, and "by itself" is an attempt to do that.
 * First, I have either no opinion or just don't agree on the first half. The first half has a lot of words which need to be clarified and I can't understand what you are talking about exactly, "legitimate" and "various" in particular. Second, I cant see how "by itself" can attempt to do "that". Please show us how you interpret the line "scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument." and "scientific consensus is not a scientific argument.", step-by-step preferably. Third, given that the line "scientific consensus is not (by itself) a scientific argument." has subject "scientific argument", I can't see how your argument on "a legitimate piece of evidence in various arguments" relevant to the discussion. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't understand how pointing out what the scientific consensus is on a particular topic can be an important part of a good argument? If you don't yet understand this, I suggest that such lack of understanding should disqualify you from attempting to improve the wording of an article that is trying to make that point, at least until you do understand it. Hopefully that should resolve the discussion of the first proposed change. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you acknowledge that "by itself" is there to emphasize the object, but my point is that the object is there. "Apple is red." "Apple is by itself red.", which is better? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the second proposed change, the replacement of "not part of the" with "not a" -- I do not see 14.*'s explanation as accurately representing the effect of the change. The original phrasing treats "scientific method" as a singular concept, while the new phrasing treats it as a group of concepts. While I can see justifications for both views of the phrase "scientific method", switching from one to the other is quite a significant change, and certainly not simply a minor wording clarification. Something can be not a part of X (considered as a singular concept), without also not being an instance of X (considered as a group of concepts). For example, a tricycle can be not a part of a vehicle, while still being an instance of a vehicle. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Before anything, let me ask you one question, is scientific consensus an instance of a scientific method? I don't think it is. At least not what I understand from scientific method.
 * First, quoting from you,
 * the replacement of "not part of the" with "not a" -- I do not see 14.*'s explanation as accurately representing the effect of the change.
 * For WP:CLARITY, quoting from you again,
 * For example, a tricycle can be not a part of a vehicle, while still being an instance of a vehicle.
 * I think your example is perfect. The line "Scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method." leaves us in doubt if scientific consensus can be not part of a scientific method, while still being an instance of a scientific method, so there is an ambiguity we all agree but I haven't seen any proposed change so far. Since scientific consensus is not (an instance of) a scientific method, "part of" should be removed for WP:CLARITY.
 * Second, regarding "the" and "a", they are irrelevant to the edit as I responded and explained earlier. "The" is a definite quantification, meaning there is an implied concept which can be something else, depends on previous context. Therefore, you have to show us that "the scientific method" does not refer to this scientific method to justify its necessity. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you liked my example. To answer your first question, scientific consensus, like any other "collective judgment, position, and opinion", is not an instance of any method, scientific or otherwise. Judgments are not methods. Judgments can be evidence. This should hopefully be obvious, no? I don't think I would object to adding a sentence, somewhere in the article, explicitly making that point, if you think it would be helpful.
 * My understanding of the clause you are proposing to change: " [scientific consensus] is not part of the scientific method", is that scientific consensus (as a type of evidence) cannot substitute for evidence gathered from experiments when doing "the scientific method". Your proposed change removes that meaning, and replaces it with a confusing statement confirming that a type of judgement (scientific consensus) is not a type of method (a scientific method). This is not an improvement in clarity, or even an equivalent statement. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, now we truly have consensus. I think you made a very good point and I agree that the deletion on "part of" is unnecessary. Initially, I made such change because I don't think "consensus is not a method" is immediately obvious. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikignome topic.... categorization under "scientific method"
This thread relates to edits by that would delist a couple pages from the WP:CATEGORY for Category:Scientific method. His reason seems to be that scientific consensus is not the scientific method; also that peer review is not the scientific method. I thought categories were to facillitate rapid navigation among related topics, and these are all certainly related topics even if one is not entirely defined as a subcomponent of the other. It's small potatoes until the issue is applied in a big way across lots of articles. What do others think?

Examples
 * Scientific consensus
 * Scientific consensus (Re-Revert)
 * Category:Peer review

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling me that, I've taken a look on WP:CATEGORY and now that I discover that you are right. According to your revert though, "by your reasoning LOTS of articles would be removed from that category" this is not a legitimate reason, so I reverted it and invited you to talk. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, according to WP:Overcategorization, the first section WP:NOTDEFINING, it says that if a category isn't its defining characteristics, then it shouldn't be categorized. I understand that scientific method is in some way related to scientific consensus, but scientific method is not scientific consensus's defining characteristic, as stated on the line "scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method." The problem when you add scientific method on this page is that it gives the reader an impression that scientific consensus is part of scientific method, clearly not the case. Therefore, I disagree now.
 * For peer review, I also disagree but it doesn't seem relevant to this page. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Could be, I've never dealt with the technical side of categorization; always believed broad "related" net is more important factor in reaching goal of speedy-user-navigation than narrow gnomish technical specs for the template.
 * What do others think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with IP editor. Scientific consensus is only related to peer review in that both are heuristic methods of assessing quality with limited knowledge (and as a result should share a parent category if anything). Scientific consensus is related to scientific method only in that both relate to science. Unless there's some compelling reason for them to be categorized under these inappropriate headings, I'm going to remove the inappropriate categories. 0x0077BE (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with IP editor. Scientific consensus is only related to peer review in that both are heuristic methods of assessing quality with limited knowledge (and as a result should share a parent category if anything). Scientific consensus is related to scientific method only in that both relate to science. Unless there's some compelling reason for them to be categorized under these inappropriate headings, I'm going to remove the inappropriate categories. 0x0077BE (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Greenfacts "consensus" glossary reference
The text of the Greenfacts reference seems to have been pretty much the same since 2002, according to the Wayback Machine. The text is: "The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field. / Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that: / all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress, / the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions. / Therefore, Scientific Consensus is / NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth". / / But when the scientific expertise / to judge a scientific position is lacking, / the best choice is to rely on the Consensus." This does not provide a source for the text currently being argued over. While I do think the argued over text is reasonable, it should be possible to find a source that states it -- otherwise, I do have some sympathy for the idea that it is not important enough to be included in the article. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources in this area are really tough to find, honestly, it seems like both sides are pushing an agenda, which I find very unfortunate. One thing to consider is that while the statement may be true, it is by nature a negative statement, and as a result it may be difficult to find a reliable source on it. Although there's no single "scientific method", you can see from Scientific Method that "achieve consensus" is nowhere in there. Presumably we can piggyback on their sources to prove the truth of the statement.


 * The only remaining argument should be whether or not it's worth bringing up in the article at all. Scientific consensus is also not part of the process of selecting a pair of shoes, but it would be absurd to enumerate all the things it's not. That said, I do get the impression that the way "consensus" is thrown around, in this specific case it's a distinction worth making. I'd say that since this isn't List of common misconceptions that we should be able to agree on the fact that this is information worth displaying without a reliable source, though. 0x0077BE (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

How
How do you define who is part of the scientific community and who is not? 71.215.77.22 (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One could start with who is a scientist NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem with reference #2
The sentence: "Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation." is based on a reference that is behind a paywall. This is a very broad sentence e.g. "...that require no interpretation" since the reference is inaccessible to the vast majority of wikipedia readers. It is unclear that this particular reference supports this statement because this statement is not a direct quotation from the referenced article. SunSw0rd (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A version outside paywall exists here: --Kim D. Petersen 23:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to hijack a section
The text "The assumption (natural) science, if properly conducted, would be able to automatically establish an unanimous consent, does however not stand scrutiny. It is based on a rather simplistic image of nature–culture divide which, e.g. according Bruno Latour in We Have Never Been Modern is rather illusive and not able to explain complex problems. " is a belief, but one not generally held by the sources. To me it sounds like meaningless post-modernist bullshit (I thought postmodernism was already dead) that doesn't actually provide any argument, but that's my own opinion. The text that follows is only peripherally about consensus, it's about approaches to policy and the IPCC. The source, and I'm not quite sure what on earth that source is from, appears to have been chosen because it cites Latour. In the edit as well much of the text about the scientific consensus on global warming was dropped. Second Quantization (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem with crit section
The Crit section is no good; its just one post (having got rid of C, who clearly doesn't belong). The section, if it exists, needs more balance. As it stands, that stuff belongs more on a page about the author William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it is self-evident that Michael Crichton doesn't belong. Just because he writes science fiction doesn't mean he's somehow uniquely unqualified to comment on the matter. Based on his wikipedia page, in addition to being an author, he was also a medical doctor who has performed medical research. Science fiction authors are often also scientists, and often engage in debates about the nature and future of science. I agree that right now the criticism section is a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM, so I'm not sure that the right thing to do is restore Crichton's views on the matter, but as we move forward on this section I wouldn't discount Crichton out of hand just because he writes popular fiction. (Oh, also, I will say it's misleading to call him a "Harvard-trained physician". If he is mentioned again in this article it should probably be as "science fiction author and physician", or something of that nature.) 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 15:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * His scientific expertise was extremely limited. Michael Crichton also believed in spoon bending, mystical healing and talking to plants (besides other nonsense). Not a quality source for anything other than his own works of fiction. — TPX 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than Crichton the rest of the section was cut-and-pasted from copyrighted material and should be deleted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP:COPYVIO indicates that we should err on the side of removal in this case, so I'm going to cull it. Maybe someone can summarize the points, or find a secondary source summarizing it. The references for the Sarewitz and Crichton comments are below:


 * Hopefully that'll be a good start. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 16:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for deleting. If it comes back in summary, Dr Sarewitz was questioning certain practices in preparing "consensus reports".  I read nothing in his column that casts doubt on the statement by the US National Academy of Science that there are such things as "settled facts" in science.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Crichton
I think C doesn't belong for (a) quote-farmy issues, and (b) the text clearly wasn't happy with him being a sci-fi author, and felt the need to puff up his credentials. That's a hint. science fiction author and physician is also dubious - he's not a physician. Indeed, why do we need his "credentials" at all? But also, C was a "skeptic" and his opinion is grossly biased; what was quoted from him wasn't a neutral review, just politicking William M. Connolley (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For one thing, his Wiki article indicates that he is a physician. He graduated with an MD from Harvard. It doesn't matter whether the text tries to puff him up - you can always just remove the puffery and see if it still applies, which I feel it does; frankly, I'd prefer to assume good faith and assume that the reason he was labeled as "Harvard-trained physician" was because he was commenting based on his scientific expertise, and so his role as a medical doctor is the more appropriate title in this context. In any case, none of this really matters, the appropriate test is whether you can find reliable secondary sources covering his comments and indicating that they wouldn't be given undue weight in the discussion. No need to bother with a personal assessment of his character or motives. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 16:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree its a dubious source but want to add that any given person with an MD degree might be a scientist but they might instead make their money as a diagnostic-flowchart-following pillpusher or writing novels. In my opinion, the latter types aren't scientists.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, for the purposes of this discussion it's completely irrelevant what we think anyway, since non-scientists can have opinions about scientific matters, and the relevant standard here is going to be the notability of a given person's comments. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 18:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not "notability" (notability = existence of articles), but what you said the first time -- "weight" (weight = article content assuming article exists in the first place).  With no RSs on the table, we don't need to debate the rest, I agree.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat relevant. Scientific consensus has gotten a bad reputation—and it doesn’t deserve it Crichton gets a mention, "it's worth looking at what he said, if only because it's so painfully misguided". — TPX 21:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Rainer Grundmann, Michael Oppenheimer, Mike Hulme and others
Try to be less obusivem, the connection here is neither tosh nor dead but is using high level papers. Serten II (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC) PS.: Calling RG "fringe POV" is sort of funny, that's sorta peer reviewed paper.
 * The recent addition which I've reverted is incoherent, and seems to be trying to promote a minority or fringe POV that "Various examples of opinion surveys of scientists and strong worded academy appeals along the IPCC consensus to politics have failed". Please discuss what you're trying to say on this talk page, and provide evidence that "IPCC consensus" is an actual defined term rather than shorthand for "scientific consensus on climate change as shown in IPCC reports". . dave souza, talk 01:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The so called scientific consensus on climate change is a WP internal construct with not much (secondary) sourcing per se btw. The relevant sources about the consensus from Aant Elzinga till Hulme are being left out there, and no as well, for now clear reason, as well here. With regard to "scientific consensus on climate change" (and the list of scientists opposing it) you may refer to the talk pages on Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Talk page Quote: "This article is not about the IPCC or its processes or policies"] OK, thats what "IPCC consensus" is for. The term itself is clearly defined and backed by relevant secondary sources, which are predominantly social science literature btw. The IPCC reports are just primary sources in that context. Serten II (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Take  ipcc+consensus+michael+oppenheimer on scholar, provides about 800 results. ;) Serten II (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Thats something WP has to take into account and calling the sources being used fringe, is as offensive as far from their actual standing. Stop that. Serten II (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC


 * Two problems:
 * "Various examples of opinion surveys of scientists and strong worded academy appeals along the IPCC consensus to politics have failed [8][14][15] to enable ambitious climate policies" doesn't really make much sense in English. Please clarify. . dave souza, talk 09:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IPCC consensus doesn't appear to be a properly defined term: you seem be trying to put in a social science critique of the IPCC using a shorthand phrase as a title, but need to be clearer and more explicit about what you're doing. Inline attribution might help. . dave souza, talk 09:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think 'IPCC consensus' is a confusing term in this context as the IPCC is mainly about recommending policies to governments based on assessments of the economic and social and other effects which are predicated on their assessment of the climate change science.
 * As far as I can work out Grundmann's studies do not have anything like widespread acceptance, his saying that resistance to the publication of his papers is due to the politicization of science is not good evidence that he is correct. His views were stated here without attribution which is a way of saying they are mainstream which would just be wrong. Even if he is correct Wikipedia is not entitled to say so unless secondary sources do. If they are to go here they should be qualified as to weight and attributed to him. Dmcq (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As said, google scholar provides about 42.000 entries about the topic. Start accepting reality. The claim of Grundmann having no widespread acceptance is sort of ridiculous. He has done a dozen of peer reviewed studies in the climate change field, books as "Expertenwissen" have been published by Routledge "The knowledge and power of expertise" and are being translated in Russian. What you expect? A song by Tom Lehrer? His doctorate got chinese already ;) Its still more important that he is noteable here since he, as a scholar,  has studied exactly the field that is needed for the article. It is well understood by leading IPCC authors and players, that the actual process is not in a position to reach the goal or may not do so on principle, as some of the restrictions are mutually exclusive. Oppermann is my Turn state's evidence here. If you dont provide real points, I don't see a reason not to reinstall the entry. Serten II (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your failure to see a reason not to readd an incoherent mess is irrelevant, and you seem to have a number of misunderstandings. What does the IPCC say its goal is? . . dave souza, talk 20:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you dont want to read or understand basic social science, dont edit in that territory. Collins & Evans' rule that "the speed of political decision-making is faster than the speed of scientific consensus" (compare Collins, H.M., and Robert Evans. "The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience." Social Studies of Science 32.2 (2002): 235-96, quoted in Goodwin 2009) has been applied to the IPCC and other cases. It is of basic interest for this article. I dont care what the IPCC says, I care about the description of its aim for consensus and the failure to get anything achieved in the political realm. You better start including the results of the IAC review in the climate change true faith articles, which are as bloody mess of its own. Serten II (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, you're confirming that you don't care about scientific consensus about physical science, your sole interest is the social science and political science about whether or not politicians act on science, and your assertion is that science doesn't matter because politicians are swayed by short term local issues and not long term projections of science. Your approach essentially looks offtopic, if it were written out coherently it might work as a section about the social and political implications of scientific consensus. It would also have to show the whole social/political science field, not just your favourites. . dave souza, talk 21:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty funny idea of acceptance thinking that because a person writes lots of papers and is cited in lots of social sciences papers that anyone actually agrees with them. It would be nice if there was some understanding of what consensus is never mind science before editing here. Dmcq (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I dont have to care wether you like him. As said peer review exists and its a well known scholar - If you find people that differ, based on reviews or scholarly statements, just the better. However thats not involving the IPCC primary sources, but those that actually deal with consensus from an expert perspective. One controversy in the peer reviewed litzerature is e.g. mentioned in the Grundmann article itself. Serten II (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be getting it. You need secondary sources saying that what a person said was significant or what most people agree with. Without that you need to attribute what is said as being the personal opinion of the person saying it, that's for people who have some sort of recognition. Dmcq (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, have you ever written any articles? There is no need at all to get statements that a certain study is something "most people agree with". WP asks to get good scholarly sources dealing wih a given topic. Thats the case here and you fail to get it. Serten II (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC) PS.:

Compare a review of Grundmann and Stehr Power of Knowledge "their point is that the application of knowledge is far more open to disagreement and abuse than its creation — a nuance that is frequently lost in analyses of scientific controversies." thats exactly the point with climate controversies. Serten II (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What I am pointing at is Wikipedia's policies on WP:WEIGHT and WP:YESPOV. They are a guard against editors being selective with their sources and just sticking in things that suit their point of view as if they were facts. For social sciences that someone has written a lot does not mean anyone agrees with them. passing peer review simply means they have written something the editors though well enough written to be published - it sounds original, doesn't misquote other studies and any statistics they do were carried out reasonably, unlike as in natural science where it means the reviewers have been convinced that the study has used the scientific method and conclusions are probably true. The studies you quote don't even have any statistics in that I can see, they are just pure speculation and rhetorical arguments on the authors part. Speculation like that should be attributed to the author unless there are secondary sources indicating what is being said is mainstream. And in social science what is being said very often is not mainstream in that sense because the authors who stand out are the ones who make bold new arguments. Right wing and left wing economists are not going to suddenly agree because there is no real test for saying one value is better than another and they're more mathematical than most social scientists. The best we can do is find evidence of general agreement. Dmcq (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good example what you just pointed at. Notice "Stehr and Grundmann also wade into debates about the crisis of legitimacy facing scientific knowledge in the late modern era. Again, their take is original. " Note the words 'debate' and 'original'. These indicate that what is being said is not mainstream and should just be attributed to the authors. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I already had quoted August Comte's notion on social science as being the queen of science to you, you might accept Einsteins quote "politics is more difficult than physics". Point is, the IPCC approach on "mainstream" is object of various serious scholalry studies, WP guidelines allow and ask me to use them while editing. The IPCC linear approach is neither being very successfull nor having a undisputed theoretical base. Your repeated attempts to apply the IPCC approach on social science are nothing more than OR. Serten II (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think that what you write is a mainstream view? If so then where is your evidence from secondary or tertiary sources? If not then write it with proper attribution as an opinion. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To cut that short, if you want attribution, add it yourself or ask for it in the start. Just reverting and writing lengthy prose in I just don't like it manner doesn't help. Thnx, I will replace the entries with attribution. Serten II (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material...." Although the question Dmcq raises is not one of verifiability, but of WP:FRINGE, still, his objection is not IDLI but policy. If you cannot readily find support for your position it likely is not mainstream, and no one else is required to supply what you will not do. If what you are writing is truly a mainstream view you should be able find multiple sources saying so, and not just from (say) NIPCC. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between differences of opinion and fringe. In the natural sciences there is normally just a single mainstream view though one can get variants as in the interpretations of quantum mechanics. In other area there are often a number of viewpoints. Some could be general opinion like the differences between Republicans and Democrats in the US. Some can be more restricted but still not fringe, these should be attributed in the text. Social studies papers are generally of this type. Some of them might be fringe like that there was never a moon landing. I never pointed to WP:FRINGE here. I have though pointed out WP:WEIGHT and WP:YESPOV to Serten. Dmcq (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC
 * Indeed. I don't say that he has gotten to fringe, but the weight seems to be going away from mainstream. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dmcqm thats your sort of gishgalloping, as you been explicite about "Grundmann's studies do not have anything like widespread acceptance" = WP:fringe here. Yawn. I am no side in American politics. I discussed that with Dave, used the honorable William E. Connolly on a similar topic. acceptance of the IPCC consensus does not result in anything feasible for the local level, except of cause in the US, where it has worked miracles, after Obama stopped all coal plants, closed Guantanamo, stopped eavesdropping on allies and declared war on Canada and China for not abiding to Kyoto. Dream on. If you have no idea of social sciences, leave this article to those who do. Serten II (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Widespread acceptance and fringe are not the only alternatives for how well accepted ideas are. A source saying something is 'original and interesting' does not classify it as one or the other, it is an indicator that something falls under WP:YESPOV. Dmcq (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:Burden goes in two directions. If you claim living scholars of high standing are spreding "fringe", you better base such accusations on proof, as such accusations are neither in line with WP:civil nor No personal attacks. Oppenheimer was AR4 lead author, he works at Princeton university, Hulme and Grundmann are teaching in Nottingham and King's College London, coauthor Mahoney came with Hulme from the university of East Anglia/CRU. You might heard of. I have done before a scholar search on the topic and applied WP:Fringe (on Seitz) myself. As with HUlme/Mahoney, my edits use the most cited serious third party paper about the current history of the IPCC, globally. I ask to restore them. Serten II (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bluster <> persuasion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Spite, bigotry and ignorance <> Humboldtian education ideal. I ask to provide and discuss sources to improve the article. You? Serten II (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that is another article you set up. I've no particular feelings about the article but it is not very convincing in any discussion to quote oneself in support of oneself. Discussing something normally includes the possibility of accepting it being rejected as not an improvement because most people think it isn't an improvement. Discussing in the sense of they are stupid and I will explain it to them and get it past the dolts is not consensus discussion. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am writing articles. Yes. You? Serten II (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Serten, please try more Dispute resolution (DR) and less tendentious editing and table pounding. The edits being debated here are your desired edits, so its up to you to move on to DR if you're unsatisfied with the response here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you actually start to discuss sources, we might have a dispute. So far there is no disputation, but a cold topic ban, science being ignored by gishgalloping. I don't see this article worth while to go to a admin board. I am currently working on my draft and other projects. Serten II (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you are not simply "writing articles", you are writing dubious drafts with a fringe coloration that appear to fail WP:WEIGHT, which you want other editors to fix for you. Unfortunately, your blustering and snappy little retorts tend to discourage collaboration, and even discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Reboot: consensus contested
As discussed above, scientific consensus is both a commonplace in natural sciences well known to experts in the relevant field, as Oeter Doran explains in this talk, and something which has been the subject of study in both social science and psychology. It's also something contested in political and economic debates, notably in relation to evolution and climate change, particularly recently. There's an overlap, as Hulme and Mahoney found out when their 2010 overview was seized on and misrepresented by those opposing the scientific consensus, so that Hulme had to issue a correction. I think it will be good to cover the various academic views, provided it's done in context to make sure that the majority view of experts in physical science (as summarised, for example, by NASA) is given due weight and not obscured. . .dave souza, talk 18:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with that. I see you are persisting in trying to fix what Serten refers to above as 'my draft'. Thank you for that as I think it could be a reasonable topic. The English is really terrible, so bad in fact I'd find a Google translation of some Japanese easier and I'm not at all sure what it is saying, but the structure seems to be heading towards something that would deal with the topic okay. Dmcq (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Agree with that" Me too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets not mix paradigma and consensus and use better sources than a NASA website. Paradigma (see (Thomas Kuhn) is hard science - Evolution, relativity, plate tectonics. Consensus is a social construct, like electing someone or passing a motion.
 * Half of the article is currently a coatrack trying to parrrot Oreskes US appeal, may be reduced to a "see also". The real stuff is to be found in the Science wars article. In the 70ties, constructivism was left, trustng hard facts was right. Currently (with climate change) ist the other ways round. Quote Bruno Latour about climate change dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?
 * Harry Collins and Eavens sheeps are rather British, much more evidence based and deal with Wicked problems of all sorts.
 * Hulme / Mahoney is about the breakdown of a paradigma to a local consensus, which is neither trivial nor easy, rather cool paper, the correction is of no interest for the level of abstraction needed here.
 * If you want a even more thorough approach, Grundmann has done a survey of the different sources being used for government and media (both articles and decision making) on climate change in the US and Germany. But thats for my draft ;) Serten II (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article Humboldtian education ideal is quite reasonable, the section on the 20th and 21st centuries needs copyediting but otherwise it is quite readable. Try putting the same sort of effort getting it right in places like this thanks. All you've done with that contribution is cause trouble to people trying to interpret what you're trying to say. Try simplifying it. Dmcq (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have reverted Serten's big cut to the article and assume vandalism as in trying to disrupt Wikipedia. I don't see how I can assume good faith. Dmcq (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Point is, first you ask me to improve the article, if I start to do so, you accuse me of disrupting WP. The article is not at all in a quality that is required by the topic. I will tag it and leave it. Have you ever written an article yourself? Your lack of good faith is evident, I don't need any reminders. Serten II (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You know what you did was against consensus. You know it was disruptive. You know you are trying to push your own views. Before you go which of the sources is the one you assert the article is almost entirely based on in the tag you stuck on? And since you keep asking yes I have put in some articles but not recently, I decided it was was better for me to concentrate on other things besides Wikipedia. My guess is that there are more people with an academic bent who like a peaceful environment than flourish in noise and disruption that Wikipedia allows by assuming there is a need to support all sorts of people and assume the best about all of them. Dmcq (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Serten, asking another editor "[h]ave you ever written an article yourself?" is a slur and uncivil - are you so clueless that you do not understand this? It is hardly an accidental slip, as you implied as much just yesterday (above). As there has been no issue raised regarding anyone else's editing it is fair inference that you are deliberately trying divert attention from the several issues that have been raised concerning your editing. This is quite evident lack of good faith on your part. On the otherhand, bad faith on Dmcq's part is not evident, and your accusation of such is itself a violation of WP:AGF. (See particularly WP:AOBF.)  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The different approach about writing articles is in so far important for me, as I actually edit (and write articles), while he acts on a balcony perspective, just reverts, abusive and contradictive comments towards me. Point is, one could write this article on a not-to-earnest or popular science level (Oreskes, Blogs and NASA) or use a Science studies perspective, involving Bruno Latour invention, or e.g. Grundmann's (divergent) use of the Actor–network theory (which applies for all sort of opinion changes in science). The latter would be a perspective which "people with an academic bent" may favor. I have written articles in all three categories, that went to the main page and I would like to do so here. Dmcq denies and hinders that, but doesn't contribute at all to improve any article I have met him so far. I am not using threats with sysop action on talk pages. I have the impression that the rather evident lack of AGF and the dismissal of a "Writing for the opponent" perspective in the climate field is being hindered by the popular narrative of "all dissenters have been bought by big oil". Thats a sort of US bigotry of its own. Its not explaining why other environmental challenges have been dealt with quickly and globally, long before science had a unified voice, or e.g. a German government is able to to invest or loose billions on Energiewende or nuclear-phase-out. Btw, Bush is gone, has the US gov now accepted the consensus? And? What about divergencies between evidence based policy and democratic values, does it mean a technocracy? Its not only me that has an interest in such questions, there is a heap of widespread research on it, but enWP climate change articles do not deal with them. Why? Serten II (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the answer to which source it was you said this article was practically single sourced to in all that. I see you quoted a bit of what I said to you on your user page "Whether the consensus is useful or not is irrelevant to this article. Politics is irrelevant to this article. Facts of life are irrelevant to this article". I am not here to push climate science and save the world. What I do is so that Wikipedia is a reliable and trustworthy source on noteworthy subjects and the various principles on WP:5P are I believe a good guide towards that aim. You have a strong belief that Wikipedia should be changed to achieve your aim. Wikipedia is not a place for people to publish their own opinion. I have tried to explain why having people pushing their points of view destroys the very trustworthiness which they wish to exploit to put their ideas forward. Dmcq (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Serten, you need to grasp that the only "abusive and contradictive comments" that have been made here are yours. E.g., you say "I am not using threats with sysop action on talk pages." But what would you call this comment: "Your recent disruptive edit on IPCC consensus will be mentioned at the Arbitration/Requests portal. You have been warned before." Do you recognize that?


 * Your comments continue to be abusive, and even disruptive. I strongly urge you to review WP:Disruptive editing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI ARB clarification request filed
FYI, it was unclear to me whether WP:ARBCC applies to this article, so I have filed a motion requesting clarification. You're welcome to add any relevant comments you may have.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ARBCOM closed this request on Jan. 9 and archived the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change. There was unanimous consent (with one recusal) that the ARBCC sanctions do apply to the parts of this article that relate to climate change. However, they noted that the cautionary templates regarding these sanctions are not usually applied to whole articles unless pertinent to the whole article. So: everyone watch where you step. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientific consensus on evolution?
Kevin Laland et al ask in nature 08 October 2014 “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?“ (http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080) Kevin Laland and colleagues answer “Yes, urgently!“

Kevin Laland et al on their Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) vs. the Standard Evolutionary Theory (SET)'':
 * We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.
 * The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly.
 * The core of current evolutionary theory was forged in the 1930s and 1940s. It combined natural selection, genetics and other fields into a consensus about how evolution occurs.
 * In essence, SET treats the environment as a ‘background condition’, which may trigger or modify selection, but is not itself part of the evolutionary process. It does not differentiate between how termites become adapted to mounds that they construct and, say, how organisms adapt to volcanic eruptions. We view these cases as fundamentally different7.
 * Researchers in fields from physiology and ecology to anthropology are running up against the limiting assumptions of the standard evolutionary framework without realizing that others are doing the same. We believe that a plurality of perspectives in science encourages development of alternative hypotheses, and stimulates empirical work. No longer a protest movement, the EES is now a credible framework inspiring useful work by bringing diverse researchers under one theoretical roof to effect conceptual change in evolutionary biology.

There is no more consensus on evolutionary theory, if there has ever been. This should be taken out as an example for the concept of “scientific consensus“.

--Handwerker (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article you are referring to is a two-part opinion piece, which clearly states that "researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental" at the beginning. If you scroll down a bit, you will see a counterargument written by Wray, Hoekstra and colleagues. This is a 'normal' debate through which science progresses, and it's not unusual for outsiders to misinterpret such debates as contestation. It does not mean that there is "no more consensus on evolutionary theory", as you put it. See Level of support for evolution. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The Elephant in the room
The article needs an introductory line pointing out that "scientific consensus" is a socio-political concept raather than a scientific one. There is no mechanism at all for determining if there is or is not scientific consensus, let alone an objective or an agreed one. The consensus being referred to is the position of the status quo in the scientific community, according to the definition of the latter that is being applied by the observer/commentator at the time. However, none of this is a problem. The problem comes when the reality is denied in defference to an ideological need. While the "debate" rages on what is or is not consensus on any topic (whatever consensus may have to do with the science) the term is being used in wikipedia as if it had a scientific status that it does not. This is potentially very misleading. The argument on whether or not there is consensus on climate change for instance is a real world example of the term's abuse. Here, in the wiki article Life for instance it is claimed there is no current scientific consensus on its origin, the phrase linking bak to this page and implying/granting the right that the statement is justified in some manner without actually needing to be set out. The phrase becomes merely peacocking without specifying how and what the consensus actually is. Bottom line is that the history of science shows scientific consensus to be not scientific but social. This should be the overarching statement, however worded, of this article. LookingGlass (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. It is not about us making up our own minds about what is important in topics and ignoring the sources but us summarizing what the major sources say about topics with due weight as given by the sources. There is some weight for what you say but it is not an introductory line leading topic in the sources. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Change "social" to "philosophical" and you'll at least be barking up a right tree in the right forest, but still without sources. After all, participation in glee club is also "social". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * — I agree with your statement. As soon as I saw a link to this article, it struck me as a very peculiar subject and title, something entirely alien to technical and scientific circles.  Areas of Wikipedia are gradually being corrupted by those bent on social and political manipulation of public perception, rather than just presenting facts.  It appears to me that this article has been constructed as a false foundation stone in that endeavour, so that other articles can reference it and thereby acquire an air of legitimacy in the eyes of the casual reader.  The end result is that it reduces the credibility of Wikipedia as a useful source of knowledge. — QuicksilverT @ 23:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please see also my comment at Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Biscuittin (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Follow it out and you'll find that science ia a social construct. Arguing "scientific consensus to be not scientific but social" is itself a point of view, and very much political, as demonstrated by its invocation at several points where "science" is being challenged by powerful interests. (E.g., climate change.) It seems to me this kind of complaint is nothing more than an attempt to undermine scientific authority. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "scientific authority". What's that? Don't you mean Papal infallibility. Biscuittin (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's stick to proposed article improvements, on the basis of logical reasoning applied to WP:Reliable sources. Anything else is WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. See also, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you people realize that you are achieving the opposite of what you want? You are undermining the reputation of both Wikipedia and the IPCC. Nobody will take Wikipedia seriously if this goes on. Biscuittin (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There are valid criticisms of the very idea of a "scientific consensus" that perhaps should be mentioned in the article. I am not disputing any particular consensus or theory but rather the very idea of "scientific consensus." Consensus has nothing to do with science and is often used to stifle debate, punish dissenters and/or lead scientists to interpret data according to said consensus. This is similar to Thomas Kuhn's paradigms in science which direct scientists to interpret their results according to the prevailing paradigm. Depending on what's being investigated, failure to live up to the consensus or paradigm could be career suicide. Anyone that openly questions any aspect of the prevailing consensus on Evolution is met with suppression and persecution, even when Evolution itself isn't being questioned. Suzan Mazir, for example, demonstrates in her book "The Alternberg 16" that 100s of evolutionary biologists contend natural "selection is politics not science...selection cannot be measured exactly...it is not the mechanism of evolution...it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits." Some of these scientists, like natural philosopher and zoologist Stan Salthe, has been barred from publishing in major scientific journals for his disagreement with "convergent evolution" in current Darwinian Theory. The National Center for Science and Education even refuses to publish material pertaining to self organization because it doesn't want the public to confuse it with intelligent design.

As Michael Crichton said "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7226:A00:1D8F:521:13DF:F9B1 (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you are more convinced by rhetoric from good speakers than what actual scientists say, so instead of rationality or facts I'll quote another good speaker Al Gore who is also not a scientist talkingsome about Michael Crichton "The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor […] if your doctor tells you you need to intervene here, you don't say 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem". That tells you what a scientific consensus is. It is what a sensible person would follow if they had to make a decision. It is not a religious tenet that must be believed and finding something wrong with a general consensus is one of the ways a scientist can make a name for themselves. Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yup. And if that's settled perhaps this item can be decently re-interred. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ethan Siegel
Twice have I removed user 's large addition of Ethan Siegel's personal view. Reason: wp:primary source from a blog, and entirely wp:UNDUE in the article. In my first revert I suggested putting, perhaps, a little sentence in the article body, but on second thought, I think that even that would be inappropriate. Comments? - DVdm (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (A) It's not lead material.
 * (B) The first paragraph in the first diff above seems sort of empty (just has unelaborated examples)
 * (C) The second paragraph in the first diff above starts to get at some good stuff, but doesn't the article already cover those points?
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Forbes magazine is not a blog. The writer of the piece, Ethan Siegel, is an astrophysicist and author, and a regular contributor to the publication. Right now, the only definition in the article is threadbare, and does not provide an adequate explanation to the read on what exactly s.c. is, and the only citation for that is something called Green Facts, which I've never heard of. I went looking for more sources with which we could define the term, and thus far the Forbes piece is all I could find, but it is certainly better than nothing. It provides a detailed explanation that builds upon the simple definition given in the Lead (which I moved down to the article body when I restored it), and while we need more than just one more source, more citations may be added in the future, since Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, with no deadline. When that happens, the passages can be refined so as to summarize all of those sources and the definitions they provide. For now, however, the Forbes material is valid for inclusion, and removing it is not reasonable, IMO.


 * Btw, I found two other sources that offer some possible material for inclusion:
 * 1. This Wired piece. It contains the Wikipedia definition, which we cannot use, but it also contains some other material.
 * 2. The Online Dictionary of Language Terminology. Is this an RS? Nightscream (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Siegel is books cited once, in his own book, and someone asks one question about him. Don't we have something solid from a good old (and often cited) textbook? - DVdm (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @Nightscream, Although in Forbes, Siegel's piece is an Op-Ed and not under Forbes' editorial control (see their note under the headline that disclaims responsbility for Siegel's personal opinions).  I'm not saying its non-RS, just that its questionable.   Maybe he's an uncontroversial expert in this field.   You could ask for input at the RS noticeboard.   That said, GreenFacts suffers from the same sort of problems.   Its the blog of an advocacy outfit.   Glad you're interested in this.  Have you looked on Google Scholar?  Before any work is done on the lead, attention should be paid to the body of the article.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing relevant on scientific consensus in Google Scholar either. Siegel really does not seem to be an known expert in this field. He might have an opinion on it, but I'm afraid that this is not sufficient to be even mentioned in this article. - DVdm (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I had never heard of Google Scholar, NAEGuy, but thanks for pointing it out to me. And agreed about the need to improve the body. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikilinks to Opinion and Unanimity
I have restored (twice) the wikilinks to Opinion and Unanimity because both concepts are clearly related to this article's subject. I think the wikilinks were appropriate here. - DVdm (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, "relevance" to the anchor topic is not a sufficient criterion for linking. Please read the guideline. Tony   (talk)  13:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I know the guideline. I just find that both the concepts opinion and unanimity deserve to be wikilinked here, for obvious reasons. What do other contributors think? - DVdm (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinion might be considered to have a more special meaning in the context so I think it should be linked. I don't see how unanimity can go wrong without the link so I wouldn't link it. My 2p or 2¢ or some such small amount as appropriate locally. Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What is "obvious" about the usefulness to readers of a link to this common term (opinion)? Tony   (talk)  07:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When a reader hovers over the links of the articles, they see the opening sentencese of the articles, where they immediately see the difference between scientific consensus on the one hand, and opinion and unanimity on the other, so i.m.o. these are indeed obviously highly appropriate wikilinks. - DVdm (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Opening sentence? Not for me. Tony   (talk)  10:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Preferences, Beta features, Page previews. - DVdm (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there an extra requirement besides making a term a link for making it obvious that it may be forth following? It isn't as though it is an easter egg but the article does have a section on scientific opinion. I suppose that section could be linked to directly. Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * DVdm, thanks for your technical direction; but the problem is that none of our readers set their preferences. Only some editors who know the facility exists. The article "opinion" opens with "In general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive." Then, way down, under Opinion (which would have been a better link), it seems to be at variance with that opening assertion. Not very useful to readers—confusing. If you really feal strongly about linking, please do it explicitly (not piped) under "See also" at the bottom. Tony   (talk)  04:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Feeling strongly about such trivialities would be a bit silly, no? . - DVdm (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)