Tips for Denying Scientific Consensus

[Greg Bernhardt]

This is pretty good! Can anyone add to the list?
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/12/the_five_elements_of_denialism.html

Faced with unfortunate facts or inconvenient truths? Tired of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA?" Well, simply read RealClearScience's handy guide for denying scientific consensus. It's 100% proven to work against a variety of well-substantiated topics, such as:

Drinking Water Fluoridation
Global Climate Change
Child Vaccinations
Evolution
The Link Between HIV and AIDS
I'm sure you've got a long day of crafting aluminum foil hats ahead of you, so let's get going!

 

[Student100]

Couldn't get your link to work, but I did manage to find.. http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/5-easy-tips-for-denying-scientific-consensus

Reading the comment section is somewhat depressing.

 

[Enigman]

Works fine for me...and the bigthink article seems identical to Greg's link, so whatever works I guess...
Anyway the source* that the article mentions: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full
Much more grounded and less flesh tearing.
...
EDIT: *Another paper very similar to the article http://www.lifescied.org/content/11/2/129.long

 

[Nikitin]

I think the best way to do that is to buy off REAL scientists like big oil and big tobacco do. Much more efficient, as it stops a complete consensus from forming in the first place and gives doubters plenty of ammunition.

Hm, indeed, the prospect of being bought off by a huge corporation kind of sounds nice. Maybe I should get a phd after all.

 

[SteamKing]

Consensus is a really bad way to do science. Consensus has a way of shutting down all inquiry, regardless of legitimacy of the questions posed.

At one time or another, the consensus was that the Earth was flat, the stars were fixed in the heavens, fire was caused by the release of a mysterious fluid called phlogiston, and there were only four elements (air, earth, fire, and water).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Consensus is a really bad way to do science. Consensus has a way of shutting down all inquiry, regardless of legitimacy of the questions posed.

At one time or another, the consensus was that the Earth was flat, the stars were fixed in the heavens, fire was caused by the release of a mysterious fluid called phlogiston, and there were only four elements (air, earth, fire, and water).

But none of those were a scientific consensus

 

[Borg]

This is pretty good! Can anyone add to the list?
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/12/the_five_elements_of_denialism.html

Are you sure that you want to give them more tools?

5 Easy Tips for Denying Scientific Consensus
Tip #1: Claim a conspiracy.
Tip #2: Use fake experts.
Tip #3: Cherry-pick scientific data.
Tip #4: Create unrealistic expectations of the evidence.
Tip #5: Employ logical fallacies.

6. Why cherry-pick when you can mis-quote scientific experts and data as often as possible?
After all, once it's on the internet and becomes repeated enough, it will be up to the scientific community to deal with it. You will be seen as presenting 'facts' that everyone knows are true and the scientists will be seen as being the true deniers. Plus, the time that they spend on their denials is less time they can spend on actual science.

7. Create fake controversies and push schools to teach your non-scientific viewpoint as an alternative explanation.
Emphasize to the school boards that you only want children to be able to think for themselves. At the same time, you can have others petition to have the 'controversial' portions of the scientific evidence not taught until they've been proven (can you say hypocrisy?). If your controversy becomes a well known fake, rebrand it so that it doesn't sound like the same thing and start over. Keep doing this until you succeed in slipping it past them or until the scientific evidence being taught has been watered down to worthlessness. Once you have your foot in the door, work on expanding the non-scientific part of the curriculum so that it's far beyond anything originally described.

 

[DennisN]

This is pretty good! Can anyone add to the list?
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/12/the_five_elements_of_denialism.html

Works fine for me...and the bigthink article seems identical to Greg's link, so whatever works I guess...
Anyway the source* that the article mentions: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full
Much more grounded and less flesh tearing.
...
EDIT: *Another paper very similar to the article http://www.lifescied.org/content/11/2/129.long

Thanks! Very interesting to read. I am interested in these kinds of things - not denial, of course, but the process of denial.

 

[lendav_rott]

I guess they didn't add "Tip #6 Don't make a mountain out of a molehill" in fear of looking like a bunch hypocrites...

Tip#1 leads me to believe whoever wrote it suffers from social paranoia. EEEVERYbody is out there get us 24 bloody 7

 

[SteamKing]

But none of those were a scientific consensus

That is true, but the consensus nevertheless existed, and did so for many years.

The development of scientific inquiry itself was hampered by the consensus which existed concerning the explication of nature in Aristotle's writings. Once the Church embraced Aristotle, this was a powerful disincentive to anyone who wished to go counter to the prevailing opinions of the day. Consensus has a nasty habit of turning into dogma, and the Church liked to enforce its dogma through things like inquisitions. Copernicus chose not to publish his works until after his death, and Galileo's struggles with the pope do not need recounting. While we may not burn heretics at the stake anymore, seeking consensus is no less pernicious to inquiry now than it was half a millennium in the past.

It is ironic than we admonish people to "keep an open mind", except on such and such a topic, where consensus is established. If we must rely on consensus, then that suggests that we are not entirely certain that scientific inquiry is the best method we have found to investigate nature.

 

[Pythagorean]

Scientific consensus != public consensus

If we must rely on consensus, then that suggests that we are not entirely certain that scientific inquiry is the best method we have found to investigate nature.

I don't see them as mutually exclusive. I can't do every experiment myself, so I have to have good faith in the scientific community that specializes in the things I don't have time to study. I rely on their consensus, assuming it was reached through scientific inquiry.

 

[lendav_rott]

We must rely on our own two eyes to see what's happening. Next thing you know, someone on a plane screams "we're all going to die, we're all going to die, because I'm the only non-terrorist aboard"

 

[Pythagorean]

Tip#1 leads me to believe whoever wrote it suffers from social paranoia. EEEVERYbody is out there get us 24 bloody 7

Perhaps you're missing the point of the article...

 

[Enigman]

I guess they didn't add "Tip #6 Don't make a mountain out of a molehill" in fear of looking like a bunch hypocrites...

Tip#1 leads me to believe whoever wrote it suffers from social paranoia. EEEVERYbody is out there get us 24 bloody 7

The article was aimed at comic sarcasm.

 

[DennisN]

It is ironic than we admonish people to "keep an open mind", except on such and such a topic, where consensus is established. If we must rely on consensus, then that suggests that we are not entirely certain that scientific inquiry is the best method we have found to investigate nature.

I think Michael Shermer puts it well in his "Baloney Detection Kit":

"Baloney Detection Kit #2: Does the source make similar claims?" (link)
"The point here is, you want to have a mind open enough to accept radical new ideas, but not so open that your brains falls out." (link)

"...and what you are going to find is that there is a range, some are just obviously bogus [...]" (my bolding) (link)

I recommend watching the entire clip, by the way.

 

[OmCheeto]

8. Stosselisms: Meaningless catchphrases meant to convey that the speaker is an imbecile.
Examples:

1. Give me a break
2. Are you kidding me?
3. Get real​

See also: Reaganism: There you go again...

 

[Evo]

Consensus is a really bad way to do science. Consensus has a way of shutting down all inquiry, regardless of legitimacy of the questions posed.

At one time or another, the consensus was that the Earth was flat, the stars were fixed in the heavens, fire was caused by the release of a mysterious fluid called phlogiston, and there were only four elements (air, earth, fire, and water).

Agree.

 

[Pythagorean]

Consensus is a really bad way to do science.

What troubles me about this statement is that the subject of the article is not about doing science at all. It's about how non-scientific people collect and spread information. In particular, members of the public who deny the consensus of people who "do science". So it's not saying "do science by consensus" it's saying "here's the tactics used by people who are not doing science, but gathering opinions selectively from the scientific community". Often they misinterpret articles or just use plain bad articles (unaccepted journals) but mostly they don't do any of that. They just quote some non peer-reviewed media authored by someone with MD or PhD. after their name.

All the article is saying... is that within the domain of taking somebody's word for it, maybe you should listen to the majority of the people doing science on it, rather than one crackpot scientist who gives non peer-reviewed presentations or has a web page.

It is ironic than we admonish people to "keep an open mind", except on such and such a topic, where consensus is established.

But this is exactly opposite of my experience. In neuroscience, at least, we're always being told about our textbooks "this is the current consensus... half of it will be wrong by the time you have your PhD".

When you write scientific articles, you include the scientific consensus in your introduction as well as any prominent opposing views, and then if you have a new view, you present it and your evidence. It's important that you acknowledge any conflicts with consensus in your introduction otherwise the peer-reviewers will treat you like you haven't read the literature, so consensus is important in science (physicsforums has a rule regarding that... mainstream only)

...but nobody is saying consensus is how we "do science".

 

[Evo]

What troubles me about this statement is that the subject of the article is not about doing science at all. It's about how non-scientific people collect and spread information.

Unfortunately though, recently we've seen the same tactics used by some scientists to further their personal agendas. It has caused a lot of people to question "valid" science.

I'll just cite one very damaging case.

Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an "elaborate fraud" that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday.

An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.

"It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/

 

[Pythagorean]

But isn't that the point? That paper was never part of scientific consensus. But anti-vaxers will cite it and reject the scientific consensus. That's the problem!

 

[Evo]

But isn't that the point? That paper was never part of scientific consensus. But anti-vaxers will cite it and reject the scientific consensus. That's the problem!

But there are recent cases of fraud of "scientific consensus", where the consensus is correct but a large amount of all of the fraud tactics he mentions were used by the scientists involved and as a result many people now refuse to believe the real facts. One of the scientists involved in the fraud said in an interview that they feel they were justified in defrauding fellow scientists and the public because they felt the cause was important. Unfortunately, it backfired as far as gaining public support after the fraud was exposed. You just cannot do these things in science and expect not to cause public distrust. Good intentions gone very wrong. It was a bit of a boondoggle.

 

[Enigman]

Consensus is a really bad way to do science. Consensus has a way of shutting down all inquiry, regardless of legitimacy of the questions posed.

So what are you suggesting, scientific dissension? I agree scrutiny is required and theories always have to be retested. But that's the scientific part in scientific consensus. Consensus is a bad way to do science but science is a great way to reach consensus.

 

[leroyjenkens]

How about when confronted with scientific evidence, you respond with quotes by PhD's that run contrary to the evidence? What field do they have a PhD in? It doesn't matter.

 

[lendav_rott]

Yes yes, a PhD in psychology could tell me how to fix my car, because well.. he's got a PhD..must be smart.

 

[BobG]

Yes yes, a PhD in psychology could tell me how to fix my car, because well.. he's got a PhD..must be smart.

Tom Magliozzi has a PhD and he can tell you how to fix your car, because well ... he's funny and has his own radio show.

So, yes, you can graduate from MIT (as both brothers did) and wind up being an auto mechanic.

http://www.cartalk.com/content/tom-and-rays-bios-photos-0 auto biography page.

 

[mheslep]

This is pretty good! Can anyone add to the list?
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/12/the_five_elements_of_denialism.html

o GMO

 

[SixNein]

Consensus is a really bad way to do science. Consensus has a way of shutting down all inquiry, regardless of legitimacy of the questions posed.

At one time or another, the consensus was that the Earth was flat, the stars were fixed in the heavens, fire was caused by the release of a mysterious fluid called phlogiston, and there were only four elements (air, earth, fire, and water).

Isn't consensus a major part of the construction of a proper argument of authority? And if so, how could one realistically expect a call to action at the political level if consensus isn't reached? How would we know what to include in school books? And what would be the purpose of peer review?

To me, consensus is a major milestone of scientific research.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Can anyone add to the list?
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/12/the_five_elements_of_denialism.html

Yes, academics are all a bunch of liberals. I get that one quite a bit. This is akin to the conspiracy argument but assumes that the bias is driven by political rather than financial interests.

As for the conspiracy angle, one common tactic among the climate-change deniers is to cite the money behind the green revolution. Never mind that at half a trillion a year more or less for imported oil, according to T Boone Pickens, big oil represents the largest transfer of wealth in US history.

Another one is to simply deny that a consensus exists. Where do you go to prove there is a consensus on there being a consensus?

 

[stardust]

I think it is important to note that there is a difference between consensus and dogma. Consensus is an opinion reached by some degree of common agreement subject to change in the light of new facts. Dogma, on the other hand, reflects an opinion reached by some degree of common agreement which REFUSES to be adjusted in the light of new facts. I would say it is essential to question any subject, otherwise you probably don't really understand the subject being discussed at all.

 

[stardust]

Speaking of anti-vaccination people, I find this video to be entertaining.

 

[Chronos]

Facts are oblivious to beliefs. Science is about facts. Consensus is about politics.

 

[Astronuc]

I think the term 'scientific consensus' refers to a general agreement among the portion of the scientific community who have studied a particular topic. For example, the 'Standard Model' is a general understanding, but that's not so say it is a finished piece of work.

Clearly there are cases/examples where some of the body of knowledge or understanding is misrepresented by those outside the scientific community. And we also see examples of scientific misconduct or fraud, which undermines the credibility of the scientific community, at least in the minds of the general public. The lack or loss of trust is harmful.


The scientific process is, or should be, about the pursuit of truth (facts).

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/17/what_do_we_mean_by_scientific_truth_106273.html

Calling something a “scientific truth” is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it carries a kind of epistemic (how we know) credibility, a quality assurance that a truth has been arrived at in an understandable and verifiable way.

On the other, it seems to suggest science provides one of many possible categories of truth, all of which must be equal or, at least, non-comparable. Simply put, if there’s a “scientific truth” there must be other truths out there. Right?

. . . .

I think most of us tend to the former, that there is some 'truth' that has been developed from a rigorous investigation of facts/observations/experiments that are repeatable and verifiable.

 

[Pythagorean]

Even the peer review process is a type of consensus; otherwise people (even scientists) rationalize things to themselves. you still need the broader perspective and context of the rest of the scientific community.

 

[Astronuc]

Even the peer review process is a type of consensus; otherwise people (even scientists) rationalize things to themselves. you still need the broader perspective and context of the rest of the scientific community.

Well hopefully, one's peers challenge one, and one is objective, or sensible enough not to rationlize something that is incorrect.

What constitutes the rest of the scientific community? Clearly there would be concerns about the opinion of a scientist outside of the area of one's research - or at least on certain aspects - although one's peers in other areas might provide some independent assessment of one's methods or approach.

 

[Pythagorean]

Experts in similar research. Good editors usually make an attempt at matching the right experts up for peer review.

Rationalizing, omissions, oversights. We're all susceptible. Peer review is mostly about catching those innocent errors, not screening for crackpots. That's why community is important: not to establish us vs. them group but to check each other constructively.