scientific consensus is an oxymoron. science by definition is not an exercise in consensus building, but a method of gaining practical knowledge that can be tested by reproducable experimentation.

By definition scientists can't agree?

The problem is when they agree to the point that anyone who tries to go against the consensus is shut out by the "scientific community" and labeled as crazy for trying to disprove something that "everyone knows is true"

No, by definition, scientists should test and retest and introduce different variables and even go out of their way to attempt to disprove the experiments of their peers.

I hate consensuses. Whenever I find myself agreeing with the consensus, alarm bells go off because consensus blinds. Also, it's stagnant. It doesn't invite investigation or experimentation. Agreeing with the consensus shuts you down, shuts down thought.

Some people on this sub often say "oh, there are some interesting things posted here but most of it is batshit" or something similar. So, what these people are saying is that for the most part they happily agree with the consensus, which is to say they are happy to be ignorant.

It's not being 'edgy' or a hipster or something to entertain alternative theories to everything. I'll gladly get into any alternative hypothesis just to have a counterpoint and to expand my understanding of the world by working out whether and why I agree or disagree.

Sometimes I think it has to do with personality types. Myers-briggs typology suggests that about 75% of the world is made up of personality types that are less likely to think for themselves in the sense that is useful according to most people here(aka critical thought). So, with the push for more scientific advancement, and the growing trend of atheism, the majority, the people who can't think for themselves are latching onto the new trend. Just like they did with christianity. They embrace it, but dont know about it, and make it look bad. Making anyone involved with it look bad too.

If you ever watch the documentary 'the merchants of cool' - its more like a 60 minutes thing - you can see how advertising agencies exploit culture for profit. What happens when they sell that culture is that you have people who know nothing about that culture idneitfying with those that do. Except they were brought in under a trend created by advertising agencies. So the originators of that culture, or subculture, move on because they feel they are being misrepresented by the new participants.

It will continue on until theres nothing left I think, although I do wonder if it helps people evolve and not stagnate. Keeps the thinkers thinking, and the doers kind of thinking.

I hope though that what all of this means is that the thinkers are regaining control of the systems that guide us. Whenever the 'doers' gain control over our systems everything falls apart and corruption is boundless. I wonder if all of this fluctuation in society can be modeled by a sin wave.

personality types

Check out this lecture about the US school system from decades ago. She mentions teaching students to find the consensus as that is the highest form of truth.

If this topic interests you, I recommend looking into Duke Pesta's lectures on Common Core.

TL;DR this is conditioned behavior trained by the US education system.

Oh man, I love it. Reminds me of John Taylor Gatto, I love these guys out there that really bring this knowledge into the foreground.

How stupid one has to be to compare science and religion in this way? To talk about science being a dogmatic religion? To criticize scientists for "constantly changing their theories"?

Religion deals with absolute statements that cannot be proved or disproved. It's made up shit.

Science is the humanity's ever evolving understanding of the world around us. It is supposed to be constantly changing. Every theory should be replaced with a better one. It can be tested and proven false. It will never be complete or perfect, but at any point in time it will be our best understanding of the world at that point. And the science is what made every luxury you have possible. Your relative food certainty. Your likely long life. Science is what made it possible for idiots all over the world to find each other on a thread like this and to seek confirmation from their peers.

You missed the point.

Possible. I did blank out after reading some of the comments.

Why don't you enlighten me?

He wasn't saying science is bad or wrong. He was saying that all of these "studies" that come out recently are like religious texts, in that people blindly believe them and any questioning of their legitimacy will get you called ignorant. Again he wasn't saying he thinks science is wrong or bad he just thinks in some cases it is too blindly accepted as fact. I also think what he's really talking about is articles that say bullshit like "studies show" to get people to believe it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people in everyday life quote those articles.

Fair enough. I do get frustrated by "studies show" articles as well. Most of the times journalists intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent the actual studies. And sometimes, unfortunately, even the "studies" themselves tweak the results and the stats until it fits their sponsor's agenda.

Science is not perfect. And in science there is no place for blindly believing any scientific result. Core principle of science is to question everything.

Because of that core principle, science, with all its faults, is still the best we have. Religion that doesn't allow questioning doesn't cut it. Most of the youtube conspiratards' theories fall apart after some basic skeptical questioning...

So no, science should not be blindly believed in. But in the defense of scientists and those that understand scientific principles, if one wants to argue science, it has to be with rational, testable arguments. I see too many times posters here questioning science and as a counterargument pointing to a conspiratard youtube video or Icke's books or similar. Those should rightfully be called ignorant.

Imagine a discussion forum for mathematicians. If one comes in to that forum and starts aggressively claiming that 2+2=79 because one ex kindergarten teacher said so in a youtube video, should the mathematicians spend time and argue with him? Or should they just label him ignorant and not engage him? This is equivalent of what can be seen on this sub every day

Yes, I see it all over the place. It is troubling because a lot of these bill nye futurologist angry atheists are unaware of themselves for all the cleverness they think they have. They don't seem to understand that preconceptions color our perceptions and they have convinced themselves into a tiny corner where only the quantified and advertised is real even though the quantified is nearly as censored and contextless(in this society) as any spiritual truth someone might stumble upon.

id rather believe in scientific journals than some fucking blog.

It's funny how science and religion kinda swapped powers. You can either "debate religion" or "ask science".

Do it

Becoming? Psh, that shit's been a dogmatic religion. Seriously. It's sad.

ITT: people who dont understand the scientific method.

honestly this thread is fucking hilarious. depressingly hilarious.

peoples interpretations of the results can be skewed, i see that happen in /r/science posts all the time but that's generally caused by the unavoidable fact that some of these things are extremely complicated and sometimes it just isnt possible for someone to really 'get it' in just one article because it requires some background knowledge on the subject, this kind of blocks out people from really knowing whats going on so they have to rely on someone else's 'dumbed-down' or ELI5 summary. That's where bias and just plain misunderstanding can creep in.

also, the scientific research community isnt perfect because it's made up of humans who unsurprisingly just want to get ahead in one way or another, so you see things like PHDs written by someone other than the recorded author and bias research because its funded by a particular company with a particular agenda but it does a better job than any other system i know of when it comes to sorting out fact from fiction. however, misunderstandings and falsities, whilst misleading to the general public, generally dont affect the people who it matters most to which are the scientists who piggy back off that research to make even more scientific gains which is essentially the beauty of the scientific method and why it works in my opinion.

i think your last sentence is overly pessimistic and exaggerated, i mean, anything can and has been USED as a propaganda tool, it's a bit unfair to then say the value of it as a whole is diminished. i mean what about movies, literature which are great forms of art and have been able to inspire and stimulate our minds for thousands of years ?

anyway, you replied thoughtfully and forced me to think about my position so thank you and kudos.

i see this response a lot. Its a really popular response. yeah, its common that people accidentally say that the empirical methods of science are 'dogmatic,' when instead they mean the belief in the results. Your argument is really just about semantics, and it's a pedantic argument at best. I find this frustrating. Its such a waste of time, as its pretty damn easy to understand what is being implied - whats more is that you're arguing they cant understand, when you seem to be struggling yourself.

I find these potatoes shallow and pedantic

lol, thats petarded!

im always reluctant to use the word pedantic because of that damn show :P

no one is saying that the conclusions a scientist comes to based on his research/experiments are always true. do some people think every conclusion a scientist makes will be true forever more, sure, and they would be wrong in making that assumption. I also dont believe it's an institutionalised problem like OPS parrells with religion are trying to make you think. however, if you have to make your mind up on a subject then it's the best most objective way to do it. also, i never said 'they cant understand'. sometimes things are too complicated for the layman like you or me to fully grasp, because some things are too complicated to understand them without prior knowledge and understanding. ie you might not understand quantum physics because you dont have a basic understanding of calculus and trig. so, to make that connection, things need to get whittled down and simplified, it's during this process that things can get left out/omitted or just not articulated properly, thus causing a misunderstanding

Ah, I think I misunderstood you, I agree with your sentiments.

In effort to try and understand what's in original post, I meet people regularly that argue against the idea of possibility, general theories, and other ideas if they fly in the face of established science. That empirical evidence is held high, like god's word, and you would have a hard time convincing these specific people that possibility exists. I agree that it can't have much to do with god or the institutions of religion, and I think you're right it has a lot to do with misunderstanding science - if i understand you correctly you're defending their innocence i think? They being the people who only accept information if it's from the science community.

I thought the OP was trying to say that these people argue like they're defending god's existence, its just been replaced with science. They're more interested in fighting for their convictions than for truth, which contradicts science - which might be what makes these people so frustrating. Maybe they're just emotionally driven people, they make up half the world, and they speak up the most - so maybe this negative approach to science seems more prevalent because we're more likely to be engaged by these people than the quiet rational ones.

The most frustrating aspect of this blind acceptance is that it's like these people are out to completely nullify inductive reasoning, which most of the time serves as a gateway to the deductive process.

If I sound like im contradicting you, im not intending to. I agree with you, just trying to rephrase in my own words and expand on what you said.

Oh, spot on , I think we are completely on the same page then.

Rupert Sheldrake's The Science Delusion. It's called the cult of scientism. Science and scientific method are great. Dogma is not.

I am so glad this got brought up. I've been thinking this for awhile and completely agree. The blind faith that people have in these bs "studies" and "most scientist agree" drives me crazy and has me really concerned about its potential for propaganda.

Yes.

Also the fact that scientists constantly change their theories and change their minds just like the councils of rome used to change the bible

they don't change theories, they are disproven and new theories are hypothesized, tested and accepted or rejected. it's a methodical process.

It hasn't stopped us from believing false things.

there is no 'believing' in science, you use facts to come to a logical conclusion.

I don't believe that.

you dont have to believe the definition of a word. that's why we have dictionaries :)

Religious people for thousands of years made the exact same claim about God. Did you read the article I linked? The dictionary definition is not the whole story.

Actually religious people have faith without reasoning.

Science is logical reasoning based on proven truths.

Religion is faith despite evidence.

Religion provides a sense of meaning and comfort for believers, and studies show that such beliefs intensify during threatening situations. Now research suggests that some people's faith in science may serve the same role.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-mimics-faith/

Faith mimic science. It's the other way around. Real things do not mimic fiction. Science is based on reality.

That's what religious people say about science, and you are just asking me to accept the supremacy of empiricism (only that which we can measure exists) when it's impossible to prove empirically. How can you claim that you have measured all of reality and now know what is and is not real?

Science constantly changes - the theories we believe today will be completely overthrown by a new scientific paradigm, like what happened with phlogiston.

It hasn't stopped us from believing false things.

peoples interpretations of the results can be skewed, i see that happen in /r/science posts all the time but that's generally caused by the unavoidable fact that some of these things are extremely complicated and sometimes it just isnt possible for someone to really 'get it' in just one article because it requires some background knowledge on the subject, this kind of blocks out people from really knowing whats going on so they have to rely on someone else's 'dumbed-down' or ELI5 summary. That's where bias and just plain misunderstanding can creep in.

also, the scientific research community isnt perfect because it's made up of humans who unsurprisingly just want to get ahead in one way or another, so you see things like PHDs written by someone other than the recorded author and bias research because its funded by a particular company with a particular agenda but it does a better job than any other system i know of when it comes to sorting out fact from fiction. however, misunderstandings and falsities, whilst misleading to the general public, generally dont affect the people who it matters most to which are the scientists who piggy back off that research to make even more scientific gains which is essentially the beauty of the scientific method and why it works in my opinion.

i think your last sentence is overly pessimistic and exaggerated, i mean, anything can and has been USED as a propaganda tool, it's a bit unfair to then say the value of it as a whole is diminished. i mean what about movies, literature which are great forms of art and have been able to inspire and stimulate our minds for thousands of years ?

anyway, you replied thoughtfully and forced me to think about my position so thank you and kudos.