Subscribe Today!
Networked Blogs
Dec
20
On Scientific Consensus
Filed Under climate change, environment, science
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.
Comments
5 Responses to “On Scientific Consensus”
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.
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?
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.
a7h22gfdv292dgq1
I’ve been getting tons of comments like the one above lately, it’s annoying.