Scientific consensus through the ages.

mkpdavies · 21-02-2008, 08:56 PM

William M. Briggs, Statistician » Consensus in science

Quote:

In 1914, there was a consensus among geologists that the earth under our feet was permanently fixed, and that it was absurd to think it could be otherwise. But in 1915, Alfred Wegener fought an enormous battle to convince them of the relevance of plate tectonics.
In 1904, there was a consensus among physicists that Newtonian mechanics was, at last, the final word in explaining the workings of the world. All that was left to do was to mop up the details. But in 1905, Einstein and a few others soon convinced them that this view was false.
In 1544, there was a consensus among mathematicians that it was impossible to calculate the square root of negative one, and that to even consider the operation was absurd. But in 1545, Cardano proved that, if you wanted to solve polynomial equations, then complex numbers were a necessity.
In 1972, there was a consensus among psychiatrists that homosexuality was a psychological, treatable, sickness. But in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association held court and voted for a new consensus to say that it was not.
In 1979, there was a consensus among paleontologists that the dinosaurs’ demise was a long, drawn out affair, lasting millions of years. But in 1980, Alvarez, father and son, introduced evidence of a cataclysmic cometary impact 65 million years before.
In 1858, there was a consensus among biologists that the animal species that surround us were put there as God designed them. But in 1859, the book On the Origin of Species appeared.
In 1928, there was a consensus among astronomers that the heavens were static, the boundaries of the universe constant. But in 1929, Hubble observed his red shift among the stars.
In 1834, there was a consensus among physicians that human disease was spontaneously occurring, due to imbalanced humours. But in 1835, Bassi and later Pasteur, introduced doctors to the germ theory.
All these are, obviously, but a small fraction of the historical examples of consensus in science, though I have tried to pick the events that were the most jarring and radical upsets. Here are two modern cases.
In 2008, there is a consensus among climatologists that mankind has and will cause irrevocable and dangerous changes to the Earth’s temperature.
In 2008, there is a consensus among physicists that most of nature’s physical dimensions are hidden away and can only be discovered mathematically, by the mechanisms of string theory.
In addition to the historical list, there are, just as obviously, equally many examples of consensus that turned out to be true. And, to be sure, even when the consensus view was false, it was often rational to believe it.
So I use these specimens only to show two things: (1) from the existence of a consensus, it does not follow that the claims of the consensus are true. (2) The chance that the consensus view turns out to be false is much larger than you would have thought.

A bit like the voodooist envirofacist cults consensarse of today.

Akria · 21-02-2008, 09:06 PM

The one regarding a static Universe is false, although I can't speak for the others.
Logicians and philosophers had shown the problems with the assumption of a static Universe long before, and their arguments were generally accepted. The observation of red shift was merely the clincher.

Roland · 21-02-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

The one regarding a static Universe is false, although I can't speak for the others.
Logicians and philosophers had shown the problems with the assumption of a static Universe long before, and their arguments were generally accepted. The observation of red shift was merely the clincher.

Albert Eisenstein, Nikola Tesla, Isambard Kingdom Brunel are all men that were attacked and ridiculed by the rest of the scientific community for not agreeing with the scientific consensus who turned out to be geniuses and all proved them selves right.

Scientist tend to be either geniuses who change the world we live in or sheep that seek appraise by agreeing with the consensus because despite the ability to read, recite, and regurgitate the information they have been taught that earn't them their degree they really are not that intelligent.

Besoeker · 21-02-2008, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

The one regarding a static Universe is false, although I can't speak for the others.
Logicians and philosophers had shown the problems with the assumption of a static Universe long before, and their arguments were generally accepted. The observation of red shift was merely the clincher.

The first point is also wrong and probably many of the others are too.
Maybe he thinks can post with equanimity having suppressed those most likely to look analytically at his posts and respond to them?
Fascism of a different flavour?

Frith · 22-02-2008, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

Albert Eisenstein, Nikola Tesla, Isambard Kingdom Brunel are all men that were attacked and ridiculed by the rest of the scientific community for not agreeing with the scientific consensus who turned out to be geniuses and all proved them selves right.

Scientist tend to be either geniuses who change the world we live in or sheep that seek appraise by agreeing with the consensus because despite the ability to read, recite, and regurgitate the information they have been taught that earn't them their degree they really are not that intelligent.

Genius is simply genius and is often so because as well as a high IQ the individual has a very powerful imagination. As Enstien claimed, without imagination, no theories.

It is a fallacy that people with degrees "churn out what they have been taught." I'm very worried about this idea. People with qualifications have them so they have the necessary equipment plus capability to do work in certain subjects. No one can churn out a theory of any consequence by means of "regurgitation". Creationism tries to do this by basing everything on Biblical "truth".

Anyone with more than one brain cell firing knows that this kind of attempt to make something "fit" a belief is not scientific. You may not enter a university without a certain level of intelligence evidenced by your previous performance and you are not allowed to further your studies at post graduate level unless you have proof that you are armed with the necessary preliminary degrees. Many don't know this so they make erroneous statements concerning education and those who have received degrees. It doesn't pay to listen to the burblings of those who hate education. They spread ignorant poison (because they're p*ssed off with all people who achieve things of any description) and give people a false view of academia and education in general. The situation is so bad it has become a political issue.

Science is the procedure of testing and validation (or validation through testing). This rests on arguments (or theorisation) based on reason and reason-based arguments are constructed by means of logic. So the kinds of "truth" or rather conclusions drawn that will inform theories made in the scientific way, will be far more open to debate, refutation or evolution by succeeding scientists.

People who tried to investigate the world long ago and who now try to investigate it further as well as investigate the universe are not indulging in "consensarse". They are using sophisticated reasoning to probe the possibilities in the information they receive from their investigations. And they depend heavily on technology to improve their findings.

One must not view the scientific method as farcical or the result of "regurgitation". That is an internet conspiracy web masters' view. These are invariably devoid of learning and feel a little annoyed about those who are not. Instead of equipping themselves with the necessary tools for investigation and debate, they tend to build vast and often plainly stupid web sites that are causing more confusion and encouraging more genuine ignorance than anything else.

A nice gift for a young child of inquiring mind is a little microscope. He or she can investigate the world first hand through this aid from the word go and will understand that all is not what it seems and that the whole is often far more than the sum of its constituent parts. This Gestalt phenomenon will encourage imagination and insight, plus, hopefully a good sense of empathy with things and the lens will provide the truth. Hopefully the children will be so fascinated with it all, guided by good teachers, that they will want to pursue their studies and discoveries in myriads of ways, not all necessarily scientific.

Many artists have benefited from our increased knowledge of the world. The invention of photography created a whole new kind of perspective in the works of the Impressionists (as well as theories of light), for example, and Psychology created food for thought in Expressionism.

Clippo · 22-02-2008, 02:08 PM

From Briggs’ extract:-

Quote:

All these are, obviously, but a small fraction of the historical examples of consensus in science, though I have tried to pick the events that were the most jarring and radical upsets.

Do we assume therefore that the vast majority of ‘consensuses’, proved to be ‘correct’. ?

Quote:

Here are two modern cases.
In 2008, there is a consensus among climatologists that mankind has and will cause irrevocable and dangerous changes to the Earth’s temperature.
In 2008, there is a consensus among physicists that most of nature’s physical dimensions are hidden away and can only be discovered mathematically, by the mechanisms of string theory.

So is he claiming these two current ones are False ?
&

Quote:

So I use these specimens only to show two things: (1) from the existence of a consensus, it does not follow that the claims of the consensus are true. (2) The chance that the consensus view turns out to be false is much larger than you would have thought.

1. Logical – not disputed by anybody
2. His prejudice based on the incomplete & faulty research he has done.

Akria · 22-02-2008, 03:37 PM

2 is also not actually based on anything in particular, when you think about it.

21-02-2008, 09:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
Akria Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Grimsby, NELincs Posts: 2,456 Party: None	The one regarding a static Universe is false, although I can't speak for the others. Logicians and philosophers had shown the problems with the assumption of a static Universe long before, and their arguments were generally accepted. The observation of red shift was merely the clincher. __________________ I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly. Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using. http://real-democracy.co.uk \| Admin and proud The commonality of mankind: If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

22-02-2008, 03:37 PM	#7 (permalink)
Akria Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Grimsby, NELincs Posts: 2,456 Party: None	2 is also not actually based on anything in particular, when you think about it. __________________ I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly. Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using. http://real-democracy.co.uk \| Admin and proud The commonality of mankind: If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode