Scientific consensus

{{sciencenav}}{{cquote|Extreme political or religious conflicts resolve by war. Extreme scientific conflicts resolve by a search for better data.|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]]}}
'''Scientific consensus''' is what most [[scientist]]s in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant.

The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research. When it is confirmed, a [[hypothesis]] becomes known as a (lower-case) theory, or, given enough [[time]] and [[evidence]], an (upper case) [[Scientific theory|Theory]], such as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]]. Numerous times in the history of science, one theory has been superseded by another as anomalies or counter-examples accrued over time and the scientific community has discarded an older theory in favor of a new theory which accounted for more of the data in a more satisfactory way. This often occurs as the result of improvements in the accuracy of the instruments used to observe, record, and measure phenomena.

==Misunderstanding==
[[File:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2nd edition Thomas Kuhn.jpg|thumb|right|165px|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2nd edition Thomas Kuhn]]
Advocates of [[pseudoscience]]s tend to see scientific consensus as just an [[argument from authority]] (or even a [[conspiracy]]).<ref>[http://respectfulinsolence.com/2010/03/24/hostility-towards-a-scientific-consensus/ Hostility towards scientific consensus: A sign of a crank], [[Respectful Insolence]]</ref> Some even assume the existence of a mysteriously ill-defined "scientific establishment" enforcing received scientific orthodoxy by diktat.<ref>
Compare:
{{cite book
| last1 = Sisson
| first1 = Edward
| chapter = 14: Debunking the Scopes 'Monkey Trial' Stereotype
| editor1-last = Dembski
| editor1-first = William A.
| editor1-link = William A. Dembski
| editor2-last = Licona
| editor2-first = Michael R.
| title = Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=SuRNZJ6M11MC
| location = Grand Rapids, Michigan
| publisher = Baker Books
| publication-date = 2010
| page = 79
| isbn = 9781441211798
| access-date = 2017-06-03
| quote = Of course, the scientific establishment of today would denounce all of this.
}}
</ref>
The twisting of "[[science was wrong before]]" ([[Pseudoskepticism|pseudoskeptics]] may intone), and then what about the [[Galileo gambit]]? Furthermore, since the notion of [[falsifiability]] exists (no theory can ever be [[Uncertainty tactic|''fully'']] certain or religiously dogmatic), we should then [[False dichotomy|ignore the mountains of literature already available]]. Or the opponents of "the" consensus simply [[willful ignorance|equate]] ''falsifiability'' with "false".

Portraying scientific consensus as a form of majoritarian rule is hilarious for two reasons:

# The scientific community has the inherent role of keeping a ''check'' on [[argumentum ad populum|popularly-held]] (either "right" or "wrong") opinions.<ref>Scheufele, Dietram. [http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_3/14040.full "Communicating science in social settings."] ''PNAS'' 110(3), 2013.
</ref>
# If a new idea proves its case ''despite'' mainstream [[academic]] thought at the time, it will eventually ''become'' the new consensus.<ref>Compare [[Thomas Kuhn]].</ref> (For a while, at least.)

==See also==
*[[Essay:Scientific consensus]] for a more thorough examination of this topic

==External links==
*[[Steven Novella]] [http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=388 explores the issue of scientific consensus.]
*[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/thinking-global-change/201211/the-pivotal-role-perceived-scientific-consensus The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science], ''Psychology Today''

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Science]]

Categories: Science