I'll have to disagree with the spirit of Crichton's argument on this. Yes, there have been many times throughout the course of history when the consensus has been incorrect - the earth revolving around the sun, for example. However, Just because we have examples of Consensus being incorrect, does not mean we should continually dismiss it as being incorrect. I feel like the "Relativity of Wrong" applies here in some way (if not, i am nevertheless reminded of it). Consensus is still a very useful tool when it comes to explaining difficult concepts in the public sphere. For example, I've done hours of research on what the scientific, medical, and psychiatric community has to say about Transgender people. reducing what I know into something that someone will understand (specifically someone who has a problem with trans people and is misinformed ) is very difficult. It is much easier, useful, and impactful to say "Here is what the APA has to say, here's what the AMA has to say. You're wrong, and either misinformed or purposely ignorant." The important thing to remember is that consensus is not enough. Consensus has to be something that you use as a first step, but can then back up with evidence. If the evidence doesn't match up, the Consensus is wrong, but this also depends on what evidence the consensus had to go on at the time. New evidence will change the consensus. I think it is better to say "There is no such thing as science by consensus" rather than "There is no such thing as Consensus Science".
Well that depends on what someone is trying to use his argument to say. If one is trying to say "Consensus isn't enough", then of course I agree. If someone is trying to say "Disagree just because it's the consensus", then I have to disagree, because that doesn't follow Crichton's argument. If someone is saying "There's no such thing as a scientific consensus", then I also have to disagree because that's not really the point of what Crichton is saying. What he is saying, fundamentally is that "Just because something is a consensus doesn't mean it's correct, and so using consensus alone is insufficient evidence." Furthermore, he goes on to say that one person with verifiable evidence can "overrule" a consensus opinion. He's not wrong, but as they say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The reality is that this very rarely happens, and it is even rarer for new evidence to be found to actually be in contradiction of the consensus. Consensus changes very little in science because it is based on evidence. Well, he's making a conditional fallacy here, so I'd be careful how seriously I took the logic.Disprove its logic
If I thought you were actually interested in understanding my reading of the quote and how you used it, I might continue. However, considering your last two replies I can tell you're not. Here's a pro tip for interaction on hubski: We attempt to try to understand one another here. If you had said "I think you're trying to say (x), is that right? I don't see how that applies to the argument we're having here", or "I think I misunderstand. are we talking about (x), or (y)?" then the further interactions we had here could have been really good. Instead, you did what they refer to in Improv as "blocking". Instead of working with me to create a conversation, you said no. So why would I continue?
The quote itself is pretty self-explanatory, so I don't think it warrants the kind of convoluted exegesis that you attempted in your comments. It seems to me like you've been trying to attack Crichton's argument from different angles but are either unwilling or uncapable of giving a coherent rebuttal. If that was never your aim from the start, then I apologise for "blocking" you. After re-reading all your comments, I'm not sure what kind of conversation you were trying to create...
What's incoherent about this argument? You haven't given any clues as to what's wrong with it. You seem to continue to believe that the quote can stand by itself without support, which is clearly wrong at this point. Give a couple pointers. Make an attempt to understand.
In the first comment: I think it is better to say "There is no such thing as science by consensus" rather than "There is no such thing as Consensus Science". In the second comment: If someone is saying "There's no such thing as a scientific consensus", then I also have to disagree because that's not really the point of what Crichton is saying. What he is saying, fundamentally is that "Just because something is a consensus doesn't mean it's correct, and so using consensus alone is insufficient evidence." Furthermore, he goes on to say that one person with verifiable evidence can "overrule" a consensus opinion. He's not wrong, but as they say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The reality is that this very rarely happens, and it is even rarer for new evidence to be found to actually be in contradiction of the consensus. Consensus changes very little in science because it is based on evidence. There's your argument. It's a different interpretation of the quote. I'm going to make an assumption here (because you haven't made an argument of your own) and say that you're using the quote to say something like "Consensus in science doesn't work and should never be trusted". The gist of what I think coffeesp00ns is arguing is something like "Consensus science shouldn't always be trusted, but also not always be distrusted." How's that?Yes, there have been many times throughout the course of history when the consensus has been incorrect - the earth revolving around the sun, for example. However, Just because we have examples of Consensus being incorrect, does not mean we should continually dismiss it as being incorrect.
The important thing to remember is that consensus is not enough. Consensus has to be something that you use as a first step, but can then back up with evidence. If the evidence doesn't match up, the Consensus is wrong, but this also depends on what evidence the consensus had to go on at the time. New evidence will change the consensus.
Well that depends on what someone is trying to use his argument to say. If one is trying to say "Consensus isn't enough", then of course I agree. If someone is trying to say "Disagree just because it's the consensus", then I have to disagree, because that doesn't follow Crichton's argument.
"Confused ideas and muddy ponds appear deep." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophism (Sorry, I'm not going to waste any more time on this.)
You're the one who's having their time wasted right now? EDIT: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
"Confused ideas and muddy ponds appear deep."