Subdeacon Joe Posted December 9, 2023 Share Posted December 9, 2023 "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." - Michael Crichton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted December 9, 2023 Share Posted December 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said: "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." - Michael Crichton Quite correct. Which is why "Global Warming, Climate Change", or what ever they decide to call it next is a crock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creeker, SASS #43022 Posted December 10, 2023 Share Posted December 10, 2023 4 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said: "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." - Michael Crichton Its a cute qoute but simplistic and argues the wrong point. Being contrary (breaking with consensus) does not magically make you right. Belonging to a majority bloc that is in agreement does not necessarily make you wrong. Being correct is, and should be, the only goal. Every deviation from "consensus" is not a step forward or derived from a deeper understanding than others. And just because someone screams out their minority opinion does not mean that opinion is worthy of a listen - usually they are wrong. The problem arises when "truth" is nuanced and slow to reveal itself in its entirety - too many grab hold of (or dismiss) the initial consensus and then refuse to adjust their opinions as new "truths" are revealed or the initial consensus requires modification. Example: Climate Change. Climate change is real. Anyone with a shred of observational ability or education knows this to be true. Climate change has happened MANY MANY times thru out history; long before mans presence on this planet - ice ages to climate heating to cooling again. Indisputable truth. But we cannot seem to work from that common consensus - one side has to say Climate Change is a hoax and is not occurring at all and the other side claiming all the planets climates changes are man made from the events of the industrial revolution forward. Because both sides want to tack on their "additional opinions" to this truth and call the other side names and demand they accept their ENTIRE SCENARIO as truth. And both sides pat themselves on the back claiming nobility and bravery because "they" are the only ones speaking truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted December 10, 2023 Author Share Posted December 10, 2023 32 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said: Being contrary (breaking with consensus) does not magically make you right. How did you come up with that? 36 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said: Belonging to a majority bloc that is in agreement does not necessarily make you wrong. Or that? Neither one is even vaguely hinted at. 5 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said: Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,.... In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. That's the issue. Politics has taken over science and anyone who dares to question the orthodoxy of "consensus" is automatically wrong and almost universally cut off from funding and publication. In your example of "climate change" you used the usual short form. The political meaning of that is Man-Made Climate Change. And that is what the so-called deniers have an issue with and what is meant by people who say that climate change isn't real. Most will cite the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creeker, SASS #43022 Posted December 10, 2023 Share Posted December 10, 2023 In my opinion; Crichtons qoute over emphasizes being contrary. Great scientists are NOT great because they broke with consensus - they are great because they were correct. The whole construct of a single noble voice of reason being drowned in an ocean of idiocy is cute - but history has shown that generally the guy screaming at clouds is not a visionary but usually nuts. As for referencing "Scientific" speech - I am well aware that words have meaning; the addition of words or deletion of same change the meaning and context of others. When folks (not necessarily you) decide to use shorthand to support or argue against a point - I generally disregard everything they say following. If they are too lazy or ill informed to frame their initial debate premise accurately - I am inclined to move on as I assume their "detailed" arguement will be just as lacking. I fully understand the scientific differences/ political debate points between Climate Change, Naturally Occurring Climate Change and Man Made Climate Change. I also recognize that the TRUTH likely lies in "some" combination of each. Same as I recognize the correlation/ causation/ political expediency between deaths, gun deaths, accidents, murders and suicides. When ANYONE from either side speaks in absolutes and insists their side is completely correct and the other is completely wrong - I dismiss them as fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watab kid Posted December 10, 2023 Share Posted December 10, 2023 being a scientist means multiple testing and same results , the current trend to consensus is to circumvent the scientific process and get a bunch[of like minded] folks to agree with you , its killing the process of science to establish a point that may or may not be true , those that go with consensus are being duped into believing what some of us consider unproven , if you can provide proof , i will agree with your consensus , but those pushing consensus want us to proceed on a path based on the unproven , its why so many of us consider you climate change people a cult [religious fanatics] without any scientific basis in facts , i do not question climate change , after all its changed a number of times in the global experience , i do question the human factor - i reject the idea that we humans can change the course of it - the earth will change as it always has with or without or without our input , and having a political government tax us to change that is absurd , if it could it would have happened by now and al gore would not be jetting all over the globe spreading his BS , their predictions so far are all false and all you have to do is look back on them and see that they did not happen to know it , that said , im all for the capitalist system working to produce alternative energy and transportation at economical levels within our current scientific understanding and limitations for a different way of doing things , but ....much as henry fords motivations with the automobile they beed to be available to the masses , they need to be developed by industry , using ingenuity and the great minds of our society to find the way --not be dictated by a government -- they need to be evolved not mandated , the human population will find its way - we dont need a dictator to tell us where to go , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokin Gator SASS #29736 Posted December 10, 2023 Share Posted December 10, 2023 The whole basis of the quote is that even if one lone scientist breaks from the consensus with something that is scientifically verifiable in the real world he would be correct. The fact that he would be going against the consensus is secondary. The verifiability is primary. The people trumpeting climate change (man made) have for decades predicted the coming ice age, then when it hasn't occurred according to their warnings they change it to global warming. Now they just go with climate change to cover all the bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip Snorter Posted December 10, 2023 Share Posted December 10, 2023 I can recall the same BS all the way back to being force fed Silent Spring in grade 6 or 7 a whole lot of decades ago. NONE of it has happened. WEF is predicting doom, "this may be the last normal year". Nothing will happen unless they make it happen. Hopefully they realize that whatever they do, they probably can't be certain of controlling it, and may be caught up in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlands Bob #61228 Posted December 10, 2023 Share Posted December 10, 2023 There have been lots of changes to the climate over the last 4 billion years. We have been accurately keeping records for maybe 150 years. The weather is constantly changing so averages and extremes are really the only way of comparing one time period to another. The TV weather chick routinely talks about setting a new record high or low for the day. This is only comparing the time that they have been keeping records. When they get to 10,000 years of daily data, maybe they can start to see a trend. Follow the money. If they create a catastrophe, the government will pour money into studying the problem. The people who propose solutions to the problem seem to be getting tax incentives and grants. ie. solar panels, EV's, research grants. I'm very suspicious of this whole "man made global warming" story line. The Earth very well may be warming as it has many times before. Is taking away my natural gas stove going to make a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Mark Posted December 10, 2023 Share Posted December 10, 2023 True science does not manipulate your spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 Posted December 10, 2023 Share Posted December 10, 2023 Of course climate change is caused by us, the only way to think it's not is to focus on one fact so you can ignore all the rest. There was more to the Industrial Revolution than just starting to burn things that cause emissions. There were also a lot of technical and medical advances that increased our population and our lifespans, we went from half a billion people to eight billion in less than the blink of an eye and the weather events we're seeing now is the Earth just barely starting to react. It's not just emissions, it's also a drastic change in resource consumption and waste generation and it's not sustainable. Don't worry, the Earth will be just fine, but if we insist on being stupid it will be fine without us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.