An interesting read from the NY Times’ Andrew Revkin on the concept of “scientific consensus“:

To many scientists and students of scientific history, there really is no such thing as a consensus. There is a preponderant view at any one point in time, but it is largely defined by disagreement, not agreement. Someone comes up with a new framing for how the world works and tests that conception (where possible) through experimentation, observation, analysis and (for complex phenomena without comparable control cases) simulation.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google
  • TwitThis
  • Mixx
  • Propeller
  • Furl
  • Reddit
  • Technorati
  • Slashdot
  • blogmarks
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Live
  • SphereIt

Technorati Tags: , ,

  • ScribeFire Test Post
    Just a quick test to see how the Firefox addon “ScribeFire” works with my WordPress blogging software. I’m writing the...
  • Will Climate Change Drain Lake Michigan?
    Scientists predict bad things for Lake Michigan if temperatures in Chicago and Northwest Indiana continue to rise. A report predicts...
  • NWI Blog Carnival
    Welcome to the March 26, 2008 edition of nwi blog carnival. Petro presents WHAT SHAPES A PERSON posted at...
  • Global Warming Means Defense Build Up
    Prediction: The threat of global warming will require the build up of America’s defenses if we are to protect ourselves...
  • Simply Socialism?
    Investor’s Business Daily fires a shot over the bow of the Democratic campaign ship with a scathing analysis of Barack...


  • Comments

    5 Responses to “On Scientific Consensus”

    1. J. McAndrew on May 15th, 2008 6:06 pm

      Heard your interview with DJ Grothe. You proved you are more intelligent than Grothe, but I believe your characterization of the New Athiests are off base. You are lumping them all into one category and that is over simplifying things to preserve your own world view.

    2. J. McAndrew on May 15th, 2008 6:16 pm

      Do you advocate for intelligent design and the concept of irreducible complexity. How do you rationally and logically make a case for a creator?

      I assume that you believe a world without God would unleash the worst in the human soul? That’s what many Christians believe too. Interesting. Didn’t Karl Marx say religion is the opiate of the masses. The masses must be controlled by this God delusion or all hell will break loose?

    3. Chris on May 15th, 2008 7:10 pm

      Hi J. McAndrew,

      I’m not “the” Chris Hedges — the author and former New York Times correspondent — you are looking for. However, I do enjoy the questions.

    4. Susanne Maddox on November 12th, 2008 6:05 pm

      a7h22gfdv292dgq1

    5. Dan on November 12th, 2008 9:39 pm

      I’ve been getting tons of comments like the one above lately, it’s annoying.

    Leave a Reply




    Indiana Top Sites -- Indiana's Best Websites Vote for Us on Top Sites of America Web Sites List!
    Blog Flux Directory Local Blogs - Blog Top Sites NWI Blogger