Once again, scientific consensus does not mean that you should not question it. Indeed, that's what scientists should do! Consensus is there precisely to be challenged. That is what Einstein did, and he and fellow scientists collected enough evidence to overturn consensus and form a new one.
Your usage of the term consensus is very different from how its stated by (good) scientists and the scientific method.
PS: This article has a pretty simple definition of the term -
things we’ve already learned, and the solid foundation for where we go from here.
Yet today it is used much like "You have to have faith" to question is to be called the "Heretic, or Blasphemer".
This is NOT the fault of scientists. Yet even scientists who are being shielded by this pseudo-religious approach should speak up and say... "Hey, that's not how science works, this person is not speaking for me..." as it kind of is necessary to maintain the integrity of science.
Just because someone speaking in this B.S. way is blocking people that are challenging your hypothesis/theories doesn't mean it is okay to ignore such actions. The integrity of science is important.
The actual scientific method doesn't mention consensus that I saw. :)
But yes science itself is the scientific method (aka the tool we use) and the things we have discovered using that tool. I agree with you there.
Yet I do not agree at all with how consensus is being used to shut people down rather than science.
No one is saying that, at least no one who understands the term correctly. That's what I mean - the term has been misused, and you're misusing it as well. I've clarified this three or four times now, so I'll leave it at that.
The problem is A LOT of people are saying that. Perhaps those that know the term are not speaking up and shutting down the people speaking in their behalf.
That is a term/phrase you can likely find misused in a new article EVERY SINGLE day. That is a guess, but I believe there is a high probability of it being true. Hit or miss a day here or there.
In which case, it's an entirely different problem. Alright, I'll have to quit the discussion at this point, I have said all that I wanted to. Cheers!
It is okay if you step out and don't speak. Yet that isn't an entirely different problem. It was what my entire blog post was about. I wasn't attacking science itself as I am a huge fan and I love the scientific method. I was attacking exactly what you saw here.
Perhaps you read certain things, assumed what you wanted, reacted to what you thought I was writing about without completely reading it and understanding what I was actually talking about? This could be my fault, it could be yours, and ultimately it doesn't matter.
Not once did I attack science. I did state those that do not follow the scientific method are not actually scientists. I also did state there is no CONSENSUS as an aspect of the scientific method. I've looked. I haven't found any cases of the scientific method where consensus or was mentioned.
You also quoted the first paragraph and I'm not certain you bothered reading the second one.
I do offer you a challenge, as I can't find it anywhere. Show me where CONSENSUS is part of the scientific method.
I've looked. I do have one caveat. If you can make it a source that is at least a decade old. As I bet there are some rewritten more recent ones you can find. I haven't found any yet, but it wouldn't surprise me.
As far as I can find CONSENSUS is not anywhere in the scientific method. I also believe the scientific method is elegant and beautiful, so I have not once been talking about FLAWS in the scientific method itself.
Wow, it's everywhere. I'd recommend The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn as a particularly good read about the scientific method. It's probably the most thorough description I've read.
Proof I was not just giving you lip service. I was sincere.
I'll check that out. It at least is from 1962 so shouldn't be polluted at all by the current political landscape.
From what I can see the steps of the scientific method are rather simple and elegant. It'll be interesting to see why someone thought they need to turn it into an entire book. Perhaps it has some methodology on how to properly develop good experiments, etc. Some experiments I think one of the trickiest things is conceiving of a good CONTROL.
I actually am going to order this from Amazon. Thank you for recommending it. All other places I've gone just looking up the scientific method... it's pretty simple, elegant, and straightforward without any mention of consensus. :)
So I look forward to this. I believe this likely will be a pretty good book anyway. So I am sincere in my thanks.
Actually I want to point out something. Everywhere is an absolute. I can state with 100% certainty it is not everywhere. I looked at a dozen different websites on the scientific method and consensus was not part of it in any of them.
Though I will check out this book when I get it.
I can say it is far from EVERYWHERE.