In a recent interview, famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson was challenged on his scientific views about COVID-19 and he said “I’m only interested in consensus” - words that would have Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei rolling in their graves.
Another diligent and brilliant piece Maryanne. These thugs in lab coats, the highest form of intellectual snobbery, are destroying the fundamental freedoms of curiosity, exploration and investigation. They bind their minds to power, and unwittingly destroy their own reputations along with the work of so many good people, just because their earlier career boldness has decayed into lazy arsed throne sitting.
Great post! Just became a founding subscriber. The same “consensus” was manufactured regarding climate alarmism: many, many good scientists smeared, funding cut, etc. That was my first eye-opening to “scientism.”
I suppose the consensus is that consensus is not part of science, or are there dissenting views about this? While it is certainly correct that consensus tends to suffer the same outcomes as "groupthink", it is better to refute it by showing that science is imperfect, and that nature far too complicated for the human mind to understand without oversimplifying. This has been the historical record. That being said, I think it may be better to say that there are some areas of science which are "widely accepted" and others which are "widely accepted as being refuted by the scientific evidence" and others that remain in the realm of conjectural. This being said, it is worth footnoting that even what is widely accepted or widely rejected is also widely recognized as being subject to future modification based on further research data.
A thoughtful annd important article. But I don’t agree completely. Science generally progresses by a new consensus being formed and strengthened. There’s always politics involved.
Good one! :) In my experience, people fall back on ad hominems when they have no counter-evidence. My statement that NDT looked less smart than he is was obviously my opinion, and people are free to disagree and present their evidence why. But that wasn't the main point, which is this: Domain-specific knowledge is necessary for sound reasoning and complex problem solving, and that is well supported by the evidence, which I supplied. I'll be happy to supply more if you'd like, but first let's hear your critique of the evidence I supplied, along with supporting evidence for your critique. I'm not sure what "complex language" you're talking about (seemed pretty simple to me, and if you read the articles, they were defined there), but if you want to be more specific, I'll be happy to repeat the definitions. It's interesting you are accusing me of not having any support for my ideas when, in fact, I supplied it, while you provided zero evidence for yours.
Yes, Robert Malone is a very credible person, and we should all listen to him instead of well, anybody who disagrees with him because he's got ALL the evidence on his side, for sure! (Link #1) As for the concept of scientific consensus, it tends to get hijacked and misused by politics. This is unfortunate, because then people reject the scientific PROCESS, and then what exactly do they base their decisions ON? Anything BUT scientific evidence. Is that better? People like NDT, though brilliant, need to stay in their lane of expertise when debating. I heard him say why he relies on "scientific consensus" for all things Covid, because that's not his area of expertise, and he trusts the scientific method. That's fine, but it doesn't make for a good debate. When it comes to something new like Covid, the consensus will evolve quickly, which is a good thing, because it means data is still being collected and the scientists are not stuck in old data. But people who don't understand the scientific method think that's a bad thing. For people who are still open to the scientific method as the most reliable source of information, and want to know more about the notion of "consensus," the 2nd link is helpful. We all need to better understand the scientific method, and how consensus evolves over time. Nobody gets all upset about changes in the consensus of physicists (space and time are elementary; oh, wait, maybe not!) But when it comes to the scientific areas that impact recommendations for human behavior (e.g., masking, vaccines, climate change), people are more resistant because it's human nature not to want to be told what to do. It's ironic that people who didn't want to put a "new" vaccine into their body were more than willing to put a "new" monoclonal antibody into their body once infected (invented in 2020). (mRNA had been studied since the 1960's, and monoclonal antibodies since the 1970's, so even there, mRNA was more well researched). So many mistakes were made during Covid because of our nation's "pre-existing condition" of polarization, fear of the unknown (it was new, remember?), along with Big Pharma's history of frequently distorting information for profit. If things don't change, we will be even less prepared for the next (inevitable) pandemic. God forbid it's more deadly next time.
I was talking about the scientific method by which medical interventions are evaluated. Is that what you would like to overthrow? As for paradigms, the originator of the term, Thomas Kuhn, indicated that mature sciences are paradigms, and are useful to solve conceptual and practical problems. In contrast, immature sciences do not yet possess a paradigm, and are lacking in consensus. Competing schools of thought lead to differing procedures, theories, and presuppositions, so there is little opportunity for collective progress. Ultimately revolutions occur to address the more serious anomalies left unsolved by the preceding period of normal science. (Link #1). Both phases are a normal part of the cycle, and each serve their purpose, but revolutions don't happen overnight, and quick solutions are critical in the midst of crises. Hopefully one day an "outside the box" thinker will uncover a totally new way to intervene with pathogens, and Covid might be the impetus to help drive this. But in the middle of a crisis, one needs to rely on what we currently know, and that evolves quickly with a new virus, especially one that mutates quickly. As for innovation coming from people who are tangentially associated with an area of expertise, that seems unlikely, but I'd be happy to take a look at the evidence, if you have any. A great deal of cognitive research has demonstrated that domain-specific knowledge is necessary for higher level reasoning and complex problem solving in a specific domain. (Link #2 - with references). In any case, NDT wasn't attempting to solve any problems, his statement was made in the context of a debate using the current science paradigm, and IMHO, debates are best left to people possessing domain-specific expertise about the topic of the debate. Otherwise, they end up looking not as smart as they are, which happened to NDT.
I agree, the ABC lost its way. When I first began working there, I had great faith that it would remain a bastion of independent journalism. Sadly, it has failed.
I agree also. The Catalyst debacle is when I started losing faith in 'our' ABC. The way they upheld the covid narrative was the last straw. They don't even try to hide their bias anymore.
Another diligent and brilliant piece Maryanne. These thugs in lab coats, the highest form of intellectual snobbery, are destroying the fundamental freedoms of curiosity, exploration and investigation. They bind their minds to power, and unwittingly destroy their own reputations along with the work of so many good people, just because their earlier career boldness has decayed into lazy arsed throne sitting.
Appreciate it, thanks John.
Wonderful! Brilliant. So clear and obvious.
DWL, Princeton
Thank you Don
Scientific consensus is a contradiction of terms!
Great post! Just became a founding subscriber. The same “consensus” was manufactured regarding climate alarmism: many, many good scientists smeared, funding cut, etc. That was my first eye-opening to “scientism.”
Really appreciate your support. Thank you 🙏
I'd like to hear more about the Great Barrier Reef...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/04/great-barrier-reef-coral-recovery-climate-change/
I suppose the consensus is that consensus is not part of science, or are there dissenting views about this? While it is certainly correct that consensus tends to suffer the same outcomes as "groupthink", it is better to refute it by showing that science is imperfect, and that nature far too complicated for the human mind to understand without oversimplifying. This has been the historical record. That being said, I think it may be better to say that there are some areas of science which are "widely accepted" and others which are "widely accepted as being refuted by the scientific evidence" and others that remain in the realm of conjectural. This being said, it is worth footnoting that even what is widely accepted or widely rejected is also widely recognized as being subject to future modification based on further research data.
A thoughtful annd important article. But I don’t agree completely. Science generally progresses by a new consensus being formed and strengthened. There’s always politics involved.
I also agree that there has to be a way of reaching an agreement about the weight of evidence, my problem is with crushing dissent on the way there. 🙏
Good one! :) In my experience, people fall back on ad hominems when they have no counter-evidence. My statement that NDT looked less smart than he is was obviously my opinion, and people are free to disagree and present their evidence why. But that wasn't the main point, which is this: Domain-specific knowledge is necessary for sound reasoning and complex problem solving, and that is well supported by the evidence, which I supplied. I'll be happy to supply more if you'd like, but first let's hear your critique of the evidence I supplied, along with supporting evidence for your critique. I'm not sure what "complex language" you're talking about (seemed pretty simple to me, and if you read the articles, they were defined there), but if you want to be more specific, I'll be happy to repeat the definitions. It's interesting you are accusing me of not having any support for my ideas when, in fact, I supplied it, while you provided zero evidence for yours.
Yes, Robert Malone is a very credible person, and we should all listen to him instead of well, anybody who disagrees with him because he's got ALL the evidence on his side, for sure! (Link #1) As for the concept of scientific consensus, it tends to get hijacked and misused by politics. This is unfortunate, because then people reject the scientific PROCESS, and then what exactly do they base their decisions ON? Anything BUT scientific evidence. Is that better? People like NDT, though brilliant, need to stay in their lane of expertise when debating. I heard him say why he relies on "scientific consensus" for all things Covid, because that's not his area of expertise, and he trusts the scientific method. That's fine, but it doesn't make for a good debate. When it comes to something new like Covid, the consensus will evolve quickly, which is a good thing, because it means data is still being collected and the scientists are not stuck in old data. But people who don't understand the scientific method think that's a bad thing. For people who are still open to the scientific method as the most reliable source of information, and want to know more about the notion of "consensus," the 2nd link is helpful. We all need to better understand the scientific method, and how consensus evolves over time. Nobody gets all upset about changes in the consensus of physicists (space and time are elementary; oh, wait, maybe not!) But when it comes to the scientific areas that impact recommendations for human behavior (e.g., masking, vaccines, climate change), people are more resistant because it's human nature not to want to be told what to do. It's ironic that people who didn't want to put a "new" vaccine into their body were more than willing to put a "new" monoclonal antibody into their body once infected (invented in 2020). (mRNA had been studied since the 1960's, and monoclonal antibodies since the 1970's, so even there, mRNA was more well researched). So many mistakes were made during Covid because of our nation's "pre-existing condition" of polarization, fear of the unknown (it was new, remember?), along with Big Pharma's history of frequently distorting information for profit. If things don't change, we will be even less prepared for the next (inevitable) pandemic. God forbid it's more deadly next time.
https://www.businessinsider.com/experts-fact-check-vaccine-claims-by-robert-malone-rogan-podcast-2022-2
https://www.intelligentspeculation.com/blog/the-scientific-consensus
I was talking about the scientific method by which medical interventions are evaluated. Is that what you would like to overthrow? As for paradigms, the originator of the term, Thomas Kuhn, indicated that mature sciences are paradigms, and are useful to solve conceptual and practical problems. In contrast, immature sciences do not yet possess a paradigm, and are lacking in consensus. Competing schools of thought lead to differing procedures, theories, and presuppositions, so there is little opportunity for collective progress. Ultimately revolutions occur to address the more serious anomalies left unsolved by the preceding period of normal science. (Link #1). Both phases are a normal part of the cycle, and each serve their purpose, but revolutions don't happen overnight, and quick solutions are critical in the midst of crises. Hopefully one day an "outside the box" thinker will uncover a totally new way to intervene with pathogens, and Covid might be the impetus to help drive this. But in the middle of a crisis, one needs to rely on what we currently know, and that evolves quickly with a new virus, especially one that mutates quickly. As for innovation coming from people who are tangentially associated with an area of expertise, that seems unlikely, but I'd be happy to take a look at the evidence, if you have any. A great deal of cognitive research has demonstrated that domain-specific knowledge is necessary for higher level reasoning and complex problem solving in a specific domain. (Link #2 - with references). In any case, NDT wasn't attempting to solve any problems, his statement was made in the context of a debate using the current science paradigm, and IMHO, debates are best left to people possessing domain-specific expertise about the topic of the debate. Otherwise, they end up looking not as smart as they are, which happened to NDT.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7137670/
https://3starlearningexperiences.wordpress.com/2018/07/10/domain-specific-knowledge-1-domain-independent-skills-0/
I agree, the ABC lost its way. When I first began working there, I had great faith that it would remain a bastion of independent journalism. Sadly, it has failed.
I agree also. The Catalyst debacle is when I started losing faith in 'our' ABC. The way they upheld the covid narrative was the last straw. They don't even try to hide their bias anymore.