Twice in the past week one misguided person or another has posted a thread on RF containing the claim that "consensus has no role in the sciences". As it happens, very little is further from the truth than that.
If you are curious about the vital and key role of consensus in the sciences (and who wouldn't be, right?), please feel free to discuss the issue with me via PM. I would love to help anyone who has a genuine interest in this topic arrive at a sound and solid understanding of it.
Unfortunately, I no longer have the time to engage willfully confused people in fruitless public debate. I am wrapped up in bringing out a book of poetry in about 45 days, writing a book of philosophy that is due out early next year, and chairing a very active and growing literary/scientific society. On top of which I'm a total klutz and goofball at time management. Hence, I just don't have the time to suffer fools via public debate.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not in the least opposed to having my ideas challenged, I am merely opposed to having my time on this rock wasted by people whose challenges are not made in good faith and in intellectual honesty.
I will respond to any intellectually honest person who inquires via PM regarding the role of consensus in the sciences and why -- for example -- when 98% of all working scientists in a particular field agree on some matter, it is time to sit up and listen.
I will also provide guidance to various resources such as books, articles, etc. so that you can study for yourself the fascinating history of denying that consensus is of key, vital, and crucial importance in the sciences. The tactic was first used by the tobacco companies as a ploy to dupe people into believing smoking did not cause cancer. It is currently being used by shills for the fossil fuel companies to dupe people into believing there is no link between greenhouse gasses and global climate change. It's a tried and tested ploy of miscreants the world over. Please do not become their fool and tool.
If you are curious about the vital and key role of consensus in the sciences (and who wouldn't be, right?), please feel free to discuss the issue with me via PM. I would love to help anyone who has a genuine interest in this topic arrive at a sound and solid understanding of it.
Unfortunately, I no longer have the time to engage willfully confused people in fruitless public debate. I am wrapped up in bringing out a book of poetry in about 45 days, writing a book of philosophy that is due out early next year, and chairing a very active and growing literary/scientific society. On top of which I'm a total klutz and goofball at time management. Hence, I just don't have the time to suffer fools via public debate.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not in the least opposed to having my ideas challenged, I am merely opposed to having my time on this rock wasted by people whose challenges are not made in good faith and in intellectual honesty.
I will respond to any intellectually honest person who inquires via PM regarding the role of consensus in the sciences and why -- for example -- when 98% of all working scientists in a particular field agree on some matter, it is time to sit up and listen.
I will also provide guidance to various resources such as books, articles, etc. so that you can study for yourself the fascinating history of denying that consensus is of key, vital, and crucial importance in the sciences. The tactic was first used by the tobacco companies as a ploy to dupe people into believing smoking did not cause cancer. It is currently being used by shills for the fossil fuel companies to dupe people into believing there is no link between greenhouse gasses and global climate change. It's a tried and tested ploy of miscreants the world over. Please do not become their fool and tool.
