Jun 16, 2025 12:43 AM
https://www.freethink.com/opinion/consensus
INTRO: When based on a solid foundation of high quality, replicable data, a consensus statement among scholars who study a field can be powerful.
Likely the most well-known in recent decades have been the consensus studies on global warming. These show that perhaps 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is caused by human action, and they are often cited by politicians in their calls for climate action.
Argument from consensus is a well-known logical fallacy, though — a lot of people believing something doesn’t automatically make it true — and most scientific consensus claims have been proven wrong. Until the mid-19th century, for instance, it was the consensus of medical professionals that handwashing by surgeons was not necessary.
Even the global warming claim is not without contention — perhaps skeptical scholars are just edged out of publishing due to publication bias.
So, does consensus even matter?
My argument here is not against human-caused global warming (I suspect that it’s real but have no expertise), but rather to question the value and, indeed, intent of consensus statements. Their main objective appears to be to reduce doubt, allowing public policy to move forward without further debate. Yet, debate is central to science, and consensus statements may stifle scientific inquiry, given the obvious professional and social costs of questioning a consensus statement.
Indeed, I worry that, global warming aside, consensus statement efforts most often come from a position of scientific weakness rather than strength. That is to say, they too often appear to be a deliberate effort to quash debate in favor of accepting one side of a contentious issue — most often one with a moral cause pushing for more stringent government intervention... (MORE - details)
INTRO: When based on a solid foundation of high quality, replicable data, a consensus statement among scholars who study a field can be powerful.
Likely the most well-known in recent decades have been the consensus studies on global warming. These show that perhaps 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is caused by human action, and they are often cited by politicians in their calls for climate action.
Argument from consensus is a well-known logical fallacy, though — a lot of people believing something doesn’t automatically make it true — and most scientific consensus claims have been proven wrong. Until the mid-19th century, for instance, it was the consensus of medical professionals that handwashing by surgeons was not necessary.
Even the global warming claim is not without contention — perhaps skeptical scholars are just edged out of publishing due to publication bias.
So, does consensus even matter?
My argument here is not against human-caused global warming (I suspect that it’s real but have no expertise), but rather to question the value and, indeed, intent of consensus statements. Their main objective appears to be to reduce doubt, allowing public policy to move forward without further debate. Yet, debate is central to science, and consensus statements may stifle scientific inquiry, given the obvious professional and social costs of questioning a consensus statement.
Indeed, I worry that, global warming aside, consensus statement efforts most often come from a position of scientific weakness rather than strength. That is to say, they too often appear to be a deliberate effort to quash debate in favor of accepting one side of a contentious issue — most often one with a moral cause pushing for more stringent government intervention... (MORE - details)