>>The consensus was so strong that some well-known voices saw social media accounts suspended or closed for speculating about Covid-19 having a “lab origin.”
Great line, and it belies the light, humorous tone of the article. A consensus so strong you get cancelled for contradicting it. It's nothing new; we've been seeing it for years in the climate change arena.
>>The consensus was so strong that some well-known voices saw social media accounts suspended or closed for speculating about Covid-19 having a “lab origin.”
Great line, and it belies the light, humorous tone of the article. A consensus so strong you get cancelled for contradicting it. It's nothing new; we've been seeing it for years in the climate change arena.
Anyone who blathers on about "scientific consensus" is either a liar or a fool, perhaps both.
It is unfortunate that we cannot resurrect Galileo to ask him what he thought of the consensus of his day.
Sadly, the population has been so dumbed-down with government "education" and endless propaganda that they believe that politically-spawned groupthink is science.
"Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
~ Albert Einstein
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, required 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."
The notion of "scientific consensus" is not just a form of the logical fallacy known as *argument from authority*, which used to be taught in school, back when schools actually educated people rather than indoctrinated them with fashionable leftist absurdities.
It is not just childish nonsense for ignoramuses, however. It is destructive of progress (which is no doubt why progressives love it so) and downright dangerous.
Here is a partial list of scientific consensus "deniers" proven right:
1. Ignaz Semmelweis, who suggested that doctors should wash their hands, and who eliminated puerpal fever as a result, was fired, harassed, forced to move, had his career destroyed, and died in a mental institution at age 47. All this because he went against consensus science.
2. J Harlen Bretz, the geologist who documented the catastrophic Missoula floods, was ridiculed and humiliated by uniformitarian "elders" for 30 years before his ideas were accepted. All this because he went against consensus science. He was eventually awarded the Penrose Medal.
3. Alfred Wegener, the geophysicist who first proposed continental drift, the basis of plate tectonics, was berated for over 40 years by mainstream geologists who organized to oppose him in favour of a trans-oceanic land bridge. All this because he went against consensus science.
4. Aristarchus of Samos, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, brilliant minds and leaders in their field all supported the heliocentric model. They were at some point either ignored, derided, vilified, or jailed for their beliefs.
All this because they went against consensus science.
5. Carl F. Gauss, discoverer of non-Euclidean geometry, self-censored his own work for 30 years for fear of ridicule, reprisal, and relegation. It did not become known until after his death. Similar published work was ridiculed.
All this because he went against consensus science.
6. Hans Alfven, a Nobel plasma physicist, showed that electric currents operate at large scales in the cosmos. His work was considered unorthodox and is still rejected despite providing answers to many of cosmology's problems.
All this because he went against consensus science.
7. Georg Cantor, creator of set theory in mathematics, was so fiercely attacked that he suffered long bouts of depression. He was called a charlatan and a corrupter of youth and his work was referred to as utter nonsense.
All this because he went against consensus science.
8. Kristian Birkeland, the man who explained the polar aurorae, had his views disputed and ridiculed as a fringe theory by mainstream scientists until fifty years after his death. He is thought by some to have committed suicide.
All this because he went against consensus science.
9. Gregor Mendel, founder of genetics, whose seminal paper was criticized by the scientific community, was ignored for over 35 years. Most of the leading scientists simply failed to understand his obscure and innovative work.
All this because he went against consensus science.
10. Michael Servetus discovered pulmonary circulation. As his work was deemed to be heretical, the inquisitors confiscated his property, arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and burned him at the stake atop a pyre of his own books.
All this because he went against consensus science.
11. Amedeo Avogadro's atomic-molecular theory was ignored by the scientific community, as was future similar work. It was confirmed four years after his death, yet it took fully one hundred years for his theory to be accepted.
All this because he went against consensus science.
«Science, on the contrary, required 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.»
This is stupid, glib bullshit because of a substantive argument and a social argument:
* Substantively, it is based on the idea that "the real world" is perfectly and universally consistent, so that verifiability independent of place, time and observer viewpoint is possible. That happens only in "physics". A famous physicists claimed "physics is science, the rest is stamp collecting". Most so-called sciences are actually "disciplines" like medicine or political economy, where are there are no perfectly consistent and universal facts, but broad generalizations are possible and useful across large segments of time, space, and observer viewpoints.
* Even for "physics" verifiability is not the matter because most physics facts, while being in principle universally true and verifiable, cannot be in practice verified by everyone, they have to be taken on trust by the public as credible hearsay. Does the Higgs boson exist? Build your own 30km diameter accelerators and check it for yourself! Is the moon made of which cheese? Travel to the moon and check for yourself whether it is made of cheddar or feta cheese. :-)
Used to be the Catholic Church exercised that kind of authority over discourse. Going back to anything like that is not an improvement in the human condition.
Progressives and their lapdog media aren't clear on whether they want to be Vatican sycophants, Puritan witch burners, or Orwellian double-speakers. Decisions decisions decisions.
>>The consensus was so strong that some well-known voices saw social media accounts suspended or closed for speculating about Covid-19 having a “lab origin.”
Great line, and it belies the light, humorous tone of the article. A consensus so strong you get cancelled for contradicting it. It's nothing new; we've been seeing it for years in the climate change arena.
Anyone who blathers on about "scientific consensus" is either a liar or a fool, perhaps both.
It is unfortunate that we cannot resurrect Galileo to ask him what he thought of the consensus of his day.
Sadly, the population has been so dumbed-down with government "education" and endless propaganda that they believe that politically-spawned groupthink is science.
"Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
~ Albert Einstein
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, required 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."
– Michael Crichton (1942-2008)
The notion of "scientific consensus" is not just a form of the logical fallacy known as *argument from authority*, which used to be taught in school, back when schools actually educated people rather than indoctrinated them with fashionable leftist absurdities.
It is not just childish nonsense for ignoramuses, however. It is destructive of progress (which is no doubt why progressives love it so) and downright dangerous.
Here is a partial list of scientific consensus "deniers" proven right:
1. Ignaz Semmelweis, who suggested that doctors should wash their hands, and who eliminated puerpal fever as a result, was fired, harassed, forced to move, had his career destroyed, and died in a mental institution at age 47. All this because he went against consensus science.
2. J Harlen Bretz, the geologist who documented the catastrophic Missoula floods, was ridiculed and humiliated by uniformitarian "elders" for 30 years before his ideas were accepted. All this because he went against consensus science. He was eventually awarded the Penrose Medal.
3. Alfred Wegener, the geophysicist who first proposed continental drift, the basis of plate tectonics, was berated for over 40 years by mainstream geologists who organized to oppose him in favour of a trans-oceanic land bridge. All this because he went against consensus science.
4. Aristarchus of Samos, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, brilliant minds and leaders in their field all supported the heliocentric model. They were at some point either ignored, derided, vilified, or jailed for their beliefs.
All this because they went against consensus science.
5. Carl F. Gauss, discoverer of non-Euclidean geometry, self-censored his own work for 30 years for fear of ridicule, reprisal, and relegation. It did not become known until after his death. Similar published work was ridiculed.
All this because he went against consensus science.
6. Hans Alfven, a Nobel plasma physicist, showed that electric currents operate at large scales in the cosmos. His work was considered unorthodox and is still rejected despite providing answers to many of cosmology's problems.
All this because he went against consensus science.
7. Georg Cantor, creator of set theory in mathematics, was so fiercely attacked that he suffered long bouts of depression. He was called a charlatan and a corrupter of youth and his work was referred to as utter nonsense.
All this because he went against consensus science.
8. Kristian Birkeland, the man who explained the polar aurorae, had his views disputed and ridiculed as a fringe theory by mainstream scientists until fifty years after his death. He is thought by some to have committed suicide.
All this because he went against consensus science.
9. Gregor Mendel, founder of genetics, whose seminal paper was criticized by the scientific community, was ignored for over 35 years. Most of the leading scientists simply failed to understand his obscure and innovative work.
All this because he went against consensus science.
10. Michael Servetus discovered pulmonary circulation. As his work was deemed to be heretical, the inquisitors confiscated his property, arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and burned him at the stake atop a pyre of his own books.
All this because he went against consensus science.
11. Amedeo Avogadro's atomic-molecular theory was ignored by the scientific community, as was future similar work. It was confirmed four years after his death, yet it took fully one hundred years for his theory to be accepted.
All this because he went against consensus science.
https://twitter.com/HiFiWhiPhi/status/1235883344019288064
All science is THEORY, "The Theory of Evolution", "The Theory of Relativity", "The Conspiracy Theory".
«Science, on the contrary, required 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.»
This is stupid, glib bullshit because of a substantive argument and a social argument:
* Substantively, it is based on the idea that "the real world" is perfectly and universally consistent, so that verifiability independent of place, time and observer viewpoint is possible. That happens only in "physics". A famous physicists claimed "physics is science, the rest is stamp collecting". Most so-called sciences are actually "disciplines" like medicine or political economy, where are there are no perfectly consistent and universal facts, but broad generalizations are possible and useful across large segments of time, space, and observer viewpoints.
* Even for "physics" verifiability is not the matter because most physics facts, while being in principle universally true and verifiable, cannot be in practice verified by everyone, they have to be taken on trust by the public as credible hearsay. Does the Higgs boson exist? Build your own 30km diameter accelerators and check it for yourself! Is the moon made of which cheese? Travel to the moon and check for yourself whether it is made of cheddar or feta cheese. :-)
Used to be the Catholic Church exercised that kind of authority over discourse. Going back to anything like that is not an improvement in the human condition.
Progressives and their lapdog media aren't clear on whether they want to be Vatican sycophants, Puritan witch burners, or Orwellian double-speakers. Decisions decisions decisions.
Why choose just one?
Right. All equal opportunity, that lot.
Good grief ...
You act as if being told the sun is the center of the universe is somehow better than being told the earth is.
Most humans are happy to defer to some kind of authority, as that relieves them of responsibility (for themselves).