BewaConsensus Science

> --- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>> If you're expecting certainty from science, you're barking up
>> the wrong tree.
>
> No, I'm expecting more substance to be attached to what is published
> and then dissemenated. Sloppiness like this feeds the very deniers
> that more solid arguments and presentations would suppress.

Scientific publication should be understood as more like an interoffice
memo than like a final press release. This is what I mean when I refer
to public lack of understanding of how science works - lots of stuff
gets published that is later shown to be wrong, not just based on new
results, but merely on more careful analysis. You publish when you
reach a point where you feel that you have something new to contribute
to the ongoing scientific conversation, and peer review exists to make
sure that your contribution is original and not trivially falsified.
The next stage is more careful critical examination, which takes place
*after* publication.

When the press or politicians lock onto some recently published paper
as guidance for policy they are making a serious error. The theories
and findings which hold up under critical examination make it into
books and review papers, and these are the places to look for more
rigorously verified science. That's why consensus is important - the
consensus *is* science, more so than any individual paper. Scientific
truth emerges out of the interaction of many individual scientists, and
papers are the medium of that interaction. It's quite possible that
the consensus is wrong, but more often than not (much more often) it's
right.

>> That's why scientific consensus is critically important - it
>> tells you what the likelihood of a particular model (and its
>> associated predictions) being accurate.
>
> How's that again? Correctness is determined by popular vote! Hmm, I
> must have missed that in my studies. I always thought evidence,
> method and falsifiability were more central to accuracy and
> understanding rather than political posuturing.

Popular vote among people who understand the issues involved and who
have something to lose by being wrong. That's why over time the truth
tends to be ferreted out. In the short term there may be serious
errors (and "short term" varies from months to decades, depending on
the subject area).

> Oh well, I guess because I'm not a scientist I really don't know the
> secrets of the temple.

There are real, systematic distortions within the system, including
political ones. We'd be better off if more people understood the
system, its' strengths and weaknesses, but most people have such a
primitive model of human nature (and are so deeply wedded to it) that
there's no real hope of widespread understanding in practice.

Politicization of science is a real problem, but it's a problem in
large part because people don't want to wait until conclusions are
firmed up. Even with moneyed interests actively working to subvert the
system, the truth will eventually come out. The problem is that the
more active and aggressive the interests are in subversion, the longer
the timescale before the truth eventually emerges, and in some cases
that's just too long.

I don't see a clear and simple solution other than to try to be aware
of the various interests attempting to push conclusions one way or
another.

......Andrew