There is no such thing as scientific consensus. In a 2003 lecture at the California Institute of Technology Michael Crichton 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. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why...
KempyKolibri|1 year ago
When an evolutionary scientist publishes a paper, do they have to reference or recapitulate the theory of evolution? No, because that position is scientific consensus. Ditto for the hypothesis that smoking increases cancer risk.
Consensus doesn’t mean “impossible to change”, it just means it is generally agreed upon. If some evidence about smoking and cancer comes out down the line, the consensus can change. It’s still the consensus, though.
meiraleal|1 year ago
You seem to hate lots of things and this subject makes you desperate to call yourself a specialist. There are 3 days you have been desperately trying to shutdown discussions in this thread. What is your problem?