Talk:Scientific consensus/Archive 1

message: :Science fiction author and film producer Michael Crichton maintains that the concept of scientific consensus is susceptible to abuse:
I have to admit, references to Michael Crichton as a reliable source of information on problems with scientific philosophy strike me as highly dubious at best, breathtaking ignorance at worst. The article seems to focus on criticisms of scienfitic consensus for the purposes of attacking climate change scientific consensus rather than making any sort of attempt to describe what scientific consensus actually is and what it means. Quotes from more reputable sources, such as from the field of scientific philosophy, shold be used. --Axon 16:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 16:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 16:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Crichton quote 

message: Here are my thoughts on the definition of scientific consensus:
:Scientific consensus is agreement among scientists that a given hypothesis or theory is true.
Surely SC is more than this. A better (though by no means final) definition:
:Scientific consensus is the agreement within a scientific field that a set of hypotheses are correct, reached through a process of experimentation through the application of scientific method and peer review.
I'm not sure about the "a set of hypotheses are correct" part: the consensus is the collection of hypothesis that are deemed likeliest to be correct, i.e. fit the evidence best.
This article attempts to describe the reluctance to accept new ideas by the consensus as a negative thing, ignoring the fact that science is all about resistance to ideas. Skepticism to new ideas until they are proved "true" is, perhaps, the defining quality of Science. Other philosophies (such as theism) may dispute this methodology. This is seperate to the criticism levied here which implies that this reluctance to accept new ideas is a form of prejudice on the part of the scientific community.
In fact, one wonders if the other articles on the scientific method aren't sufficient: surely the consensus is only those hypothesis that have passed review and independent experimentation rather than the monolithic belief system the article seems to suggest it is. Most scientists don't "believe" in "The Consensus": they merely hold that the consensus is the likeliest explanation given the evidence in their own specific fields.
When people refer to the "consensus" do they actually mean the scientific method and the scientific community which, together, could form what is commonly thought to be the "consensus"? Things get complicated here because the hypothesis exist independantly to the scienfitic community. I think the problem here is that critics tend to lump scientists into a single group under the term "scienfitic community" so as to better create accusations of eliteness and detachment from "reality". --Axon 17:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the "consensus"? 

message: The Scientific consensus and Paradigm shift articles are related. Perhaps we could agree on how to explain the process whereby scientific consensus on an issue forms. Then in a related section or article, we could discuss how a theory is attacked or defended and (if it wasn't totally correct) is ultimately amended. Thomas Kuhn wrote about this. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 20:13, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree that both articles should complement each other. I would, however, argue that the paradigm shift article seems to cover this material. Examples of shifts in paradigm (oh how I hate that awful word) more properly belong there. --Axon 10:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forming consensus 

message: The current page is nothing but uncited and undocumented personal research, in my opinion. :)  I would agree that parts of this current page coincide with my own personal research.  :))  But other parts contradict my own personal research.  8((  Since the current page gives me not a single citation to a scholarly publication that even uses the term "scientific consensus," I am tempted to cite this page to VfD as a Neologism.  :)  However, if I scan PubMed to see if scholars actually use the term at all, I find that the term is not used by scientists to describe the scientific method.  So the paragraph that begins "Formerly, there was a consensus that Newtonian gravity . . ." should be deleted because that paradigm shift had nothing to do with "scientific consensus" but rather to do with scientific method.  That is, by my experience of the scientific method, the process consists of developing some physical or mathematical demonstration of what is going on that is so clear that it convinces the new generation of scientists as they learn their way through all the possible explanations developed by their forebears.  That is, in the scientific method, the driving force is the convincing quality of the demonstration which has nothing to do with consensus.  In contrast, the term "scientific consensus" is used, for example, to describe the pseudoscience political process by which the Bush Administration organizes political appointments and funding to promote superstition. !ÔÔ! For all of the above reasons, I suggest that we have done enough personal research on the Scientific consensus page.  Could we begin to cite to actual published scholars in this page?  For example, we need to find some History of science scholar who actually uses this pseudoscience term "Scientific consensus." I understand that the term "scientific consensus" is used in the popular press of sound bites.  But we need to find an actual scholar who analyzes the political forces that use the term "scientific consensus" to promote their political agenda.  Apparently, the term "scientific consensus" has nothing to do with science.  ---Rednblu | Talk 12:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the contributors to this page, I would agree with much of your analysis: it is very difficult to uncover any definitive definition of scientific consensus and I would agree that it probably doesn't have a place in the description of Science. The only thing I would mention is that perhaps it is a term used in the Philosophy of Science, but I am by no means an expert. The term certainly gets used a lot in the media. --Axon 10:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 11:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Whatever you can turn up on this subject would be most useful. My attempts to research it have hit a brick wall. If there any philosophy of science students out there, please help. --Axon 11:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be sent to [[VfD]] 

message: I'm not sure why Feyerabend was linked to on this page: what associations does he have with the topic of SC --Axon 18:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feyerabend 

message: (William M. Connolley 23:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne]] 

message: Most people agree with the following:
* If there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about a matter, then we should conform policy to that viewpoint.
However, not all people agree with what has become the most common variation of this:
#If there is scientific consensus on a matter, this means that there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about it
#If there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about a matter, then we should conform policy to that viewpoint.
#Therefore, if there is scientific consensus on a matter, then we should policy to the consensus.
I regret to say that it has taken me three years to realize that this kind of thinking is what makes the claims of "scientific consensus" on global warming such a big deal.
Everyone agrees we should rely on the science. But we would need two agree on both of the following to agree about global warming:
* that there is scientific consensus on global warming; and, 
* that scientific consensus implies reliable science
I rush to add that opinion polls show that the American public in general has increasingly come to believe that there is a scientific consensus (or near-unanimity of scientific opinion) on global warming. I think the accuracy of these polls is beyond question. 
What makes die-hards like me so stubborn is that we're not convinced that 67% of scientists or even 95% of scientists is a large enough majority. For me, at least, disagreement by as many as 5% or 10% is enough for me to want to double-check everything. Especially when I find that people like Al Gore have tried to suppress dissent by painting skeptics like Fred Singer as associated with Rev. Moon (an obvious nut case) or oil companies (clearly out for themselves). --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 17:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, that's definitely a critical nexus of the matter.  Making claim #1, that "If there is scientific consensus on a matter, this means that there is a reliable scientific viewpoint about it" requires one to make the assumption that scientific consensus will always necessarilly reflect a reliable and accurate scientific viewpoint.  Both the history and the philosophy of science clearly urge caution about utilizing such a claim.   — Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a scientist, and I believe quite firmly in the scientific method as a method of gaining understanding and knowledge about the world.  But there's a world of difference between supporting the scientific method and thinking that the conclusions of all scientists, or even the majority of scientists, are true.  This seems to me like an argument formed as, "All people make mistakes and get things wrong, except scientsts."   — Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: In order for the scientific method to actually function the way it's supposed to, all scientists have to actively question their own beliefs and assumptions when they are challenged.  For science to correct itself with time, new theories which contradict existing accepted consensus need to be openly examined.  Yet there's clearly an inertial tendency which slows this, in preference of the preexisting beliefs and consensus of scientists.  Just look at the statements early founders such as Planck and Einstein made about quantum mechanics.   — Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: There's also a tendency for many scientists to do the same thing that all groups of humans are found to do, which is to conform.  If you ask a group of people whether they think A or B is true, and a slight majority think A is true, then if you tell them all that a majority think A is true and then go around and ask them again, the majority which picks A will increase.  It's for these reasons that it's better to try to base policy on reliable scientific viewpoints than on scientific consensus.  The only trick then becomes figuring out what the reliable scientific viewpoints are.  One certain prerequisite for figuring out what the reliable scientific viewpoints are is to have all information available, whether it supports or contradicts the scientific consensus.   — Cortonin | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance to public policy 

message: The phrase "should be" does not belong on this article outside of quotation marks.  Assessments of what "should" be are entirely personal perspective.  To be encyclopedic and NPOV, we need to instead describe what is, and we can even describe the effects of those things.  It is okay to say that careful evaluation of new research prevents science from diverging into error, but it is poor wording to say that this "should be" done.  We instead need to take the more encyclopedic and detailed route and describe what the actual effects are of science doing otherwise.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 20:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "should be" 

message: The result of the VfD on consensus science was, weakly, that it should be merged here.  Anybody who feels able to do that is hereby invited to.  dbenbenn | talk 00:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 09:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the majority would probably prefer the two articles separate given their different scopes, if a poll were specifically conducted on the issue of merging.  I'm not sure if it's quite correct to conclude a merge as the final result when the vast majority did not recommend merging.   — Cortonin | Talk 09:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, looking at it again, you're probably right.  "No consensus" would have been more accurate.  Anyway, what actually happens to it depends solely on what people here decide to do, regardless of what the poll indicated.  dbenbenn | talk 18:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: If it is to be merged here, it should be into a distinct and separate section. The article as it is now is far less POV and objectionable than it was at the start so perhaps it should remain separate - it doesn't really fit here. If it must be merged, then junk science might be a better destination for it rather than here as that's what it is. -Vsmith 17:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point that it might fit better under junk science than here, seeing as how they are at least the same type of phenomenon.  I just fear that categorizing it under junk science would perhaps be making too strong of a statement about consensus science, since junk science tends to imply the conclusions are definitively incorrect, while consensus science instead simply tends to criticize the methodology of drawing conclusions.  I think keeping the concepts distinct and separate yields the greatest potential for clarity in this case, and there's no better way to do that than keeping it in a separate article.   — Cortonin | Talk 18:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[consensus science]] 

message: Vsmith reverted commenting: "remove rambling crit section - read the section: Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making first"
:1) that section does not criticize the notion of appeals to "scientific consensus."  criticism of the concept itself is totally absent from the page.
:2) "rambling" is an issue for editing, not deletion.
:3) the section was an npov summary of a pov, with quotations from prominent individuals representing the pov.  why is it inappropriate for a page about the idea they're criticizing?
why?  Ungtss 16:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me to be an acceptable topic to touch on, but considering all the elements involved with scientific consensus, perhaps the section could be a little smaller.  It seems there should still be a mention of it, though, since it was a prominent criticism about certain usage of scientific consensus.   — Cortonin | Talk 16:11, 21 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: First of all, it confuses me Marco that you reverted my own edit by saying that you're reverting to me...  
:Because I basically reverted to your version, see  -- mkrohn 08:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: O.k. I tend to agree that polling is not a significant tool for ascending scientific consensus and reworded the article to take this into account. -- mkrohn 08:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you agree that polling isn't a "significant tool" for establishing scientific consense, how about we reword the article so it isn't mentioned?--JonGwynne 00:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we say that it is used rarely and because it might be interesting to the reader. At least I found it interesting. -- mkrohn 00:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be important that polling is used, and still called scientific consensus, precisely because it illustrates that consensus is not a flawless mechanism for identifying truth using a rigorous and idealistic scientific method (as one previous version of this article indicated), but instead, is a collective expert opinion, which just happens to be based on understanding gained through careful scientific study.   — Cortonin | Talk 00:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no way to know whether or not responses to polls are based on "understanding gained through careful scientific study".  Why should that be assumed?--JonGwynne 04:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The responses of scientists to a poll are not always based on understanding gained through careful scientific study, but the vast majority of the time, it is.  The degree of understanding, and the degree of carefulness in the study, those vary greatly, but there's always at least the intention, and usually the reality, of basing the opinions on input from scientifically obtained understanding.  I think it should go without saying that scientists are first and foremost humans.  It should also go without saying that scientific understanding is not always truth.  Science is a method, and the results obtained by this method are not always guaranteed to be true, they just tend to get closer to true over time.  Sometimes we see the myth of the scientist as a science machine, which perhaps could be addressed somewhere, but this probably isn't the article for that particular topic.   — Cortonin | Talk 21:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that polls show nothing but opinion.  You might be right in your assumption that this opinion is objective and based on dispassionate scientific study, but then again you might not be.  There's no way to know for sure so let's not assume, let's just report the facts and leave it to the individual to sort things out.  Polling is a way of determining a person's opinion and nothing more (or less).  Right?  --JonGwynne 03:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Somewhat denotatively, yes, although using ONLY the word opinion does not present the clearest impression due to multiple meanings of "opinion".  Check this definition of opinion.  Polling for scientific consensus should evaluate definition 2, and maybe even definition 3, of "opinion", but far less of this will be definition 1.  The problem is that definition 1 comes first as the more prevalent usage of opinion, so using that word alone does not zoom in to the clearest meaning, and in fact, presents the much less common case of what is being assessed as being a so called "uninformed opinion", rather than an "educated opinion".  If you want to get into an interesting conversation with a scientist about their work, try asking them what they think is true in their field, but that they can't prove.  Sometimes when you poll you will get scientists that will report those things that they think are true and can't prove, and sometimes you will get them to only report the things they can prove.  It varies by individual, and by the phrasing of the question.  Calling it simply "opinion" would be too simplistic to capture this.   — Cortonin | Talk 09:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: By contrast, check this definition of consensus.  It has "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" and "agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole".  This is what inspired me to describe it as a "collective judgment, position, and opinion of scientists."  Using those words separately I think misses something, but combining them makes more clear what is going on.   — Cortonin | Talk 09:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks Cortonin, this one sentence sums it perfectly up. -- mkrohn 09:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Cortonin.  It makes a big difference though, when you are trying to assess the opinion of scientists in their own speciality or in a more tangentially related area.  Most people have strong opinions about their own field, so their opinion is likely to be related to their interpretation of information they are intimately associated with.  This does not mean that they are unbiased, of course.  As for polling itself - scientific societies do poll their membership - policy documents, research agendas, these kind of things are likely to reflect "consensus" based, at least in part on voting.  Guettarda 21:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, good point.  I forgot about society surveys.  Often those are more about internal matters, like where to spend money and who should run the society, but they can sometimes reflect on more scientific matters, such as deciding what areas are worth focusing work on.   — Cortonin | Talk 22:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: If you poll a collection of scientists and ask them, "Do you think quantum mechanics is well supported, partly supported, weakly supported, or not at all supported by the evidence?" then you will get their judgment of this, position on this, and opinion about this.  It's more than just opinion, because they can base their response on more than just opinion.  Can you magically "distinguish" whether a scientist has based his or her response on some sort of judgment or weighing of the evidence?  No, but since you're polling a large body, you are guaranteed to get people who have considered and weighed the evidence, and so your aggregate result will include more than just opinion.  And in fact, it would be a mistake to imply that the scientific consensus does not include the collective opinions of scientists, because it certainly does, precisely because scientists are human and in humans it is known that opinion merges with judgment and assessment.  So it's not valid to say that this is not the scientific consensus simply because some opinions are averaged in.  That would just imply that someone is assuming an idealistic impression of scientific consensus or the scientific process which doesn't conform to reality.  Science is no perfect art of truth, it's simply a method for progressively getting closer to it.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a series of unwarranted assumptions on your part.  Why do you assume that when asked for their opinion, scientists will give something other than their opinion?  That's all a poll is, it questions a person's opinion.  Now, if you want to argue that Scientific Consensus is merely the reflection of the opinion of a majority of scientists that that changes things, but I don't think too many people here would agree with that analysis of it.  You say that in a sufficiently large poll, the results are "guaranteed" to be more than just opinion.  How is that "guaranteed"?  It is a fair question, don't you agree?--JonGwynne 21:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair question with a simple answer.  It's a statistical argument.  If you ask 500 physicists the question I gave above, what do you think the odds are that all 500 of them gave you an uninformed opinion?  The probability of that is slim to none.  If only a single one of them gave an informed opinion, which is more appropriately called a judgment, or an assessment, then the average result will contain more than just opinion.  Even if half of them give you an uninformed opinion (also statistically very unlikely, given the number of physicists I know), the average result will still contain a strong slant toward the collective consensus.  In reality, the actual result will be that a handful of respondents will be uninformed but will perhaps think they are informed, and chunk of the respondents will be informed and make a somewhat educated assessment, and the remaining majority will be well informed on that particular topic and make a reasonably educated assessment.  And all of them will exhibit some bias, for example, that most of them learned physics during a time period in which quantum mechanics is essentially accepted as unquestioned fact in physics.  This is still informed, but biased, because they probably question it less than is optimal since it has become accepted orthodoxy.  But this presence of some bias does not make it "just opinion".  For it to be uninformed opinion, they must be uninformed in that area, or be using no information from their training to make the assessment, and statistically speaking, this is just not the case.   — Cortonin | Talk 01:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what would happen if you asked 500 physicists the same question and, with all respect, neither do you (or, more to the point, neither does anyone else in the world).  My point is that the results depend on a great many things - not the least of which are the questions asked and the nature of the subject.  For a nice, abstract concept like quantum mechanics, it might not be a problem.  But for an issue like global warming where, unfortunately, politics plays just as big a role as science (certainly with examples like WMC, Marco and VSmith who can't separate politics and their prejudices from science), the issue is much trickier.  BTW, notice how the reference to confirmation bias keeps getting nuked even though it is central to any balanced discussion of scientific consensus.  Anyway, my point is that it is necessary to discuss the role that opinion plays in this issue and those who want to believe that because a knot of like-minded individuals who share the views that their acolytes have been parroting back here (no named mentioned) means that "the discussion is over because the consensus is in".  In the meantime, we're no closer to having any actual reference that says polling plays a sufficiently significant role in determining scientific consensus that it warrants mention in the introduction to an encylopedia article on the subject.  You seem to be one of the more level-headed people here, maybe you can come up with something.--JonGwynne 02:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a humorous aside, I was searching for papers on scientific consensus, and stumbled across an article where someone was analyzing popular conceptions about scientific consensus and conducted "an analysis of 187 reviews published on Amazon.com".  :)  It's amazing what gets published sometimes.  But anyway, the simplest reference is this.  Opinion IS part of consensus.  So yeah, there are plenty of biased people out there, and their opinions are part of the consensus.  There's a reason why my user page says what it does.   — Cortonin | Talk 07:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If opinion is part of consensus, then why doesn't the article say that.  I don't know if I agree that "scientific consensus" is literally the consensus of scientists - or whether it is a "term of art" used by scientists and for them, "consensus" means something different (and in many way the opposite) of what it means to other people.  This is something that should also be addressed by the article but every time I try, my changes are reverted by people with an axe to grind.--JonGwynne 14:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: And for the record, I would have probably objected to the removal of the confirmation bias reference from the page, except that it is linked to and discussed in greater detail lower down the page.  You have to remember that, while scientific consensus is perhaps a hot issue right now in global warming, global warming is a very tiny subset of the body of scientific work, and for most of it, the process of forming and establishing consensus works quite well.  Global warming is simply more contentious because its supporters believe there is danger if global action is not taken, and therefore, definitively defining the scientific consensus is being pushed as a much more important point than in other areas of science, where it is more acceptable to let the scientific consensus grow more carefully and gradually over time.  It is actually the pressure for political action which puts the sense of urgency and conflict into the process of assessing the scientific consensus, and the accuracy levels which can be placed on that consensus.  I would suggest adding a section on this, but it seems we already have one with the "Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making" section.   — Cortonin | Talk 07:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that global warming isn't in any way directly related to the issue of global warming.  That's the main reason I was able to successfully appeal one of the attempts of the censorship squad to have me banned for a revert violation.  :->   Anyway, I like your idea of talking about the politicization of consensus by environmental extremists.  Are you going to work something up from that and add it?  I think you should.  I know there is a detailed discussion of it in the body of the article, but it should also be mentioned in the intro, don't you think?--JonGwynne 14:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: p.s.  I have read the talk Marco and your belligerent reverts to the side, you've still not bothered to justify them.  Care to explain?  I doubt it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't mean to come off as rude as you have been.--JonGwynne 21:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus in science is usually achieved through an informal agreement as to what the best science is.  When people publish they work within certain frameworks, seminal papers get cited, this then moves into monographs and then into textbooks.  If there is disagreement, then people publish counterexamples and criticisms.  Either people are convinced, or they start to dismiss that person's "obsession" with [whatever].  Polling (when it occurs) actually asks the question.  As far as "opinions" go, the difference between polling and informal acceptance is (i) the question actually gets asked and people get to express what they think directly, and (ii) often a wider cross-section is asked than is actively publishing on the topic.  Because this generally goes to people's careers and credibility, opinions expressed tend to be more than "just opinions"...if you want to be taken seriously you can't very well ignore the published data.  So it is more than "just and opinions".  Guettarda 21:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: All well and good but none of it answers the question (and I don't think Cortonin was saying what you claim he was saying).  Here's the central question:  Where is the reference that shows that polling plays a role in determining scientific consensus?  You keep trying to tap-dance around the subject and divert attention from the lack of support for this claim but I'm perfectly happy to keep dragging you back to it if necessary.  To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, I can keep to the point when it suits me and I can keep you to the point whether it suits you or not.  Your persistent reverts without any foundation to back them up simply reinforce the fact that you have nothing to back up your position and are reverting to the "because I said so, that's why!" school of argument.  Wikipedia deserves better.  Don't you agree?--JonGwynne 02:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I think I see a scientific consensus developing here. By my observations there are five scientifically literate wikipedians who have reached a working consensus on the polling issue. I'd say we have a scientific consensus, or - maybe we should conduct a poll? Original research! - I can hear the charge now. :-) Vsmith 02:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You think this is "scientific consensus"?  I sure hope not.  Maybe you were just being sarcastic.  If not, I would respectfully suggest that you recuse yourself from further commentary on the subject or editing of the article.  BTW, your thinly-veiled insult is a violation of wikipedia policy - but your violations of policy are neither new nor rare so I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise.  ;-> --JonGwynne 02:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Scientific opinion on climate change lists several surveys that help identifying scientific consensus. Quote: "The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change." -- mkrohn 18:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, they don't.  The only thing those surveys do is reinforce the prejudices of those who participated in them.  You'll notice that the results of the various surveys turned out exactly as one would have expected given the people who were sponsoring them (what a coincidence...  NOT!).  The surveys done by right-wing groups showed that the majority believed human activity wasn't responsible for global warming and the leftist surveys all showed the opposite.  No surprises there.  This is why I am saying that polling is a bad way to determine scientific consensus.  If you want to find out what someone's opinion is, a survey is a great thing.  But opinion isn't science.  Look at the controversy over Lomborg's book.  He writes a book that shows statistically that some people's deeply-held beliefs are wrong and he gets viciously attacked for it.  In spite of the fact that his book was stringently peer-reviewed, there are still people spreading lies about it not being reviewed.  Instead of poking holes in Lomborg's scientific conclusions, they take personal shots at him.  The only reasonably conclusion is that there are no significant problems with the science of the book and all his critics have left in their bag of arguments is ad hominem.  Pretty sad if you ask me.  But it makes my point.  Opinion is a bad thing when it comes to science and people who confuse opinion with science are either misguided (if they do it accidentally) or actually evil (if they do in intentionally).  --JonGwynne 02:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion can be a fascinating and insightful part of science.  See here, for example.  It's policy that doesn't do so well when it rests on opinions.   — Cortonin | Talk 02:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the opinions of scientists can be interesting.  But they're still opinions.  The article in question is about "scientific consensus" and, as such, should be about facts rather than opinions.  That's all I'm saying.  There should be a clear and absolute differentiation between opinion, hypothesis and proven fact...  wouldn't you agree?--JonGwynne 05:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific consensus is not fact.  It's a phenomenon which emerges from scientists (who are people), not a definitive representation of truth.   — Cortonin | Talk 09:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  polling