31 March 2015
Liberals declare anthropogenic ‘climate change’ (aka ‘global warming’) factual, based on “consensus” of a number of supposed scientists.
Opinions: Consensus v. Science
To no one person can we attribute origination of the scientific method. It was developed over many years, refined by scientists like Bacon, Newton, Galileo, Descartes and other great historical thinkers. What is this method?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
- Observe some aspect of the universe.
- Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
- Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
- Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
- Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
Weakness of Consensus
Michael Crichton, writer and filmmaker, wrote the book Jurassic Park. His book became a best seller and was the basis for the movie of the same name. This creative genius was the first to use computer-generated animation.
Best known for his amazing book and movie, he was also a highly educated doctor of medicine and an honest-to-goodness scientist. Consider Mr. Crichton’s viewpoint on contemporary 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. 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.”
“Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heavens as its center, would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.” – Nicholas Copernicus
A compulsion for consensus by politicians like Colin Powell and other liberals deludes them into believing that consensus is essential to decision making. I call it “crowd think”. Perhaps, “mob think” is a better term.
Regardless the issue, whether climate change, global warming, foreign policy or socialized medicine, a broad consensus does not the truth represent. Truth is the way things really are, the actual state of a matter, a fact, proposition, principle, or statement, proven to be valid.
“But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast.” – Words of Jesus, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 AMP
Truth withstands all manner of testing. Choose wisely.