The concept of consensus means little more than a majority of opinions on a given matter. In politics this is the best we can do in making decisions to proceed with political actions. In the scientific world consensus is meaningless, and often unscientific, and worse, often wrong. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof is not science.
In the legal community there are standards of evidence which are equally unsatisfactory in settling scientific issues, such as“preponderance of evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In matters of law these are about the best we can do, short of confessions, but in scientific disputes it is inappropriate. Scientific disputes must be settled by evidence, the data, the facts, and not through verbal skills, political intimidation, or suppression of unpleasant evidence. Nor can they be settled by computer predictions, since these results are not evidence either.
Author Michael Crichton himself an MD., captured the situation very well, as he showed in this lecture at Caltech about the dangers of "consensus science":
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics...In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of."
Quite often advances in knowledge of natural science have not been led by the bureaucrats in power, but instead by a minority point of view, and in some cases by an individual such as Galileo. Even though Galileo had plotted the positions of the moons of Jupiter in his notebook, even though his telescope was available to any in authority to check, no one did. The “consensus” views of the powerful had to be maintained. And Galileo therefore suffered at the hands of powerful authorities for his heresies.
Going against the prevailing dogmas of the government authorities has been difficult, dangerous, and even deadly. The many sackings of the library in Alexandria reflect a general anti-knowledge view of the world by the powerful, from the Romans to the Christians, to the Muslims (http://www.bede.org.uk/Library2.htm).
The torture and burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno, a contemporary of Galileo, for defending the heretical heliocentric theory of the Universe, was a 17th century example of dealing with minority views (http://tinyurl.com/cern4).
The finding of the cause of puerperal fever (bed infection) by Ignaz Semmelweis in the 1800s, a killer of thousands of women during childbirth, led to his scorn and isolation by the medical community, those powerful “experts”, of the times. He found that the extremely high rates of death among women were being caused by the failure of attending physicians to wash their hands between autopsies and childbirth activities, transmitting the disease as they did so (http://tinyurl.com/yys9kl).
He paid a terrible price for his findings. He was scorned by the medical profession, suffered a mental breakdown, and died in an institution. So much for skeptics. His life-saving discovery was not appreciated until after his death. Thousands died needlessly, thanks to arrogance.
The global warming debate has turned similarly ugly. A scientific consensus has been achieved, it is claimed, the results are in, it is claimed, so it is now time to repress the skeptics and put them out of business. On October 27, 2006 U.S. Senators John D. Rockefeller IV and Olympia Snowe co-authored a request to Exxon Mobil to end financial assistance to those awful skeptics (http://tinyurl.com/ymsqdm). They were recommending that their relatively small support for skeptical scientists be terminated by Exxon Mobil.
Let’s not forget that tens of billions of dollars have been spent by the US government and foundations in support of the global warming theory and the good Senators do not call for ending that. This is a scientific issue and cannot be resolved by voting, or the development of consensus, or the censorship of scientists with differing and challenging questions. Nor can the science be advanced by the repression of information adverse to the global warmers beliefs. This isn’t a courtroom game where adverse evidence is inadmissible.
The skeptics are being isolated, dismissed, attacked, and defunded (burning at the stake hasn’t been openly mentioned yet, but Nuremburg-type trials have). (http://tinyurl.com/uykvu). They are asking hard questions, as they should, which aren’t being answered by the modelers, as they should.
The U.S. government has had a poor record in resolving scientific disputes. Furthermore, the resulting unscientific government policies have been harmful, costly, and deadly (such as the EPA DDT ban, the proposed EPA chlorine ban, exaggerations of harmful effects of low level radiation, acid rain, etc). In fact the 9000 pages of expert testimony given at the 1972 EPA hearings on DDT were ignored. This resulted in the DDT ban with the resulting millions of deaths from malaria that could have been easily controlled by DDT. The EPA continues with the 34 year DDT ban continues to this today.
Let's be clear: the acquisition of knowledge of the natural sciences has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics, of polite agreements on where to plant the daisies, or where to build the library. Letters from US Senators to silence critics is a familiar display of totalitarian instincts, a rather un-American activity we should think.
Serious scientists should welcome criticism, and many have in the past. Hypotheses are to be examined, modified, or abandoned, while knowledge is advanced, understanding improved. But it is not welcomed these days, which is, sadly, a most unscientific situation.
When Michael Crichton said that “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled”, he was right. When it comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is not consensus.
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is the science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter. A resident of Kaneohe, he has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He is also the Director Center for Science, Climate and Environment for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached via email at mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com
HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com
