The term “consensus” has become a lightning rod in the public discussion of controversial areas of science. Scientists who were baffled that much of the public didn’t agree with scientific opinions on global warming and other controversial topics, began using the term as a means of ending all argument. By proclaiming the opinions to be “consensus science,” the scientific community intended to settle the argument. The response was quite the opposite. Many people interpreted this response to mean “we don’t have real evidence but we want you to trust us because we’re scientists and we said so.” Needless to say, the gulf between the scientific community and a skeptical public simply grew. “Consensus” for much of the public has become understood as a pre-determined agreement in the scientific establishment to proclaim a particular position, independent of any evidence and any opposition.
What does the scientific community really mean by the term? Consensus is a vital part of the scientific process. Consider three possible phases of scientific research. One is the frontier phase where a collection of observations has been made but there is no theory or paradigm whereby these observations might be understood. This is a creative period in which innovative ideas are explored. The next phase is one of controversy when one or more theories have been put forth but none has gained broad acceptance. This is an exciting period when different camps vie to gain acceptance for their theory. The pressure is on to obtain more data and find persuasive evidence. The third phase is the consensus phase, when enough evidence has been gathered that one of the competing theories has emerged as the accepted theory by all parties and the competitors have conceded. There is enough confidence in the theory for it to serve as a basis for future research, extending our understanding even further.
Science isn’t always that neat and orderly and these phases are not always clearly present. Nevertheless, the basic characteristic of consensus is the acceptance of a common paradigm or theory within which observations can be understood and on which further research can be based. Who determines whether this has been achieved? The key body of scientific literature is the technical peer reviewed literature. The researchers actively publishing in a particular field are the relevant community. The practice of peer-review and reliance on reproducibility by independent groups is vital to science. It is this community that determines consensus. The existence of other opinions from the public or by those with scientific training outside of this field is not pertinent. Alternative ideas and dissent need to be published and debated within the realm of the peer-reviewed literature.
At this point, someone invariably asks whether this practice doesn’t lead to an incestuous relationship in which contrarian views are arbitrarily, if not conspiratorially, rejected, thereby ensuring consensus. The reality of the scientific community is that it is comprised of numerous independently minded individuals and groups who are very competitive. None would miss an opportunity to point to a flaw in a proposed theory if they see a valid concern. One of the trademarks of science is the dependence on reproducibility by independent groups. This helps ensure that any subjective elements influenced by bias from any source are neutralized as much as possible. When groups of differing religious, political, and cultural perspectives all come to the same technical conclusions, the effect of bias is largely removed.
Consensus need not be unanimous. It is not unusual for a small minority of individuals or groups to persist in a contrarian view, sometimes in a very vocal and public manner. If the vast majority of the researchers publishing in this field have considered their views and shown why those contrarian views are not viable, then consensus has been achieved despite the public opposition. Skepticism needs to be published in the relevant technical journals before it is considered significant. Books and other non-peer reviewed media are not indicators of serious dissent.
The status of consensus science within the scientific community is of great importance. It conveys success in a highly competitive field with the top experts on that topic. It represents a level of understanding that qualifies the ideas as being a reliable foundation for future work. It is an eagerly sought achievement and is the goal of all research. It is therefore understandable that the scientific community sees the achievement of this status as a powerful argument for validity. Since the rise of modern scientific methods in the 19th century, seldom, if ever, has a consensus scientific opinion ever been subsequently shown to be false. Paradigms that have been overthrown are usually of untested assumptions and not of theories that have gained consensus through evidence based competition. Even classical mechanics was not shown to be false in its original realm of observation, but of more limited scope in application. No example of an overturned consensus science comes to mind.
For a public with minimal scientific literacy, however, the appeal to consensus has little meaning. It seems self-serving and arrogant. It is no wonder that rather than being persuaded, many people see evidence of a conspiracy to deny real evidence. A better approach for the scientific community is to continue to seek ways of presenting the data in such a manner that the public can understand. One of the biggest challenges for scientists is to learn how to communicate to a non-technical audience. It isn’t easy but when the stakes are high, the right communication is essential.
I think I agree with everything written. I would add that it is helpful to know and admit the consensus even if one disagrees with it. For example, suppose I’m against man-made global warning. I could say “although the scientificic consensus is against me, this is why I think I’m right and they’re wrong” (assuming the consensus is so). It would be dishonest of me to try to hide the fact that I’m against the consensus, or mislead people into thinking that my thinking is in the consensus. There are some positive aspects to be honest in this way, too. It can get me more attention. Also, when I’m proven right, I can be more well known for going-against-the-grain and being on the forefront.
This is just an example since I’m not really into global warming as a hot-button issue. I have no dog in that hunt.
…Bernie
(Friend of the ASA)
It’s also good to define what scientific consensus is not. It’s not polling individual scientists nor is it looking at current scientfic journals. If you were to publish a paper showing the Big Bang is real you would get rejected not because it deviated from the consensus but because it reflected it. Journals want some novelty which by definition is not consensus. Given time if you have some papers which reflect a position and that position is not contradicted then you have a consensus.
Some of you may recall on the previous list a debate where there was two studies of surveys of papers concerning the reality of AGW. The first one was through 2003 and primarily looked for contrary papers. It found at the time a fair number of papers affirming AGW but little to none that contradicted it. A follow up study that went through 2007 found a declining number that affirmed AGW and very few that contradicted it. Far from denying a consensus here the combination of the two studies confirmed that AGW is the consensus. As consensus develops on a particular topic the number of papers that address it declines while the number of papers that contradict remains low.
As was noted above just because something is the consensus doesn’t make it true. Still, merely publishing a contrary paper shouldn’t be used as showing that it had succeeded in actually moving the consensus. There still needs to be confirmation by others. If you do move the consensus that’s how Nobel Prizes are won. When you are a scientist who is going against a consensus you don’t whine about it nor say that consensus is not important. Rather, you provide demonstrable and repeatable evidence that it is wrong. By doing the former rather than the latter AGW skeptics and ID proponents have corroded the public understanding of science, making the truth not based on multiple lines of evidence but personal opinion. Thus, this goes far beyond whether the consensus is correct in these narrow areas and why I focus on them here. I’m more interested in the epistemologically corrosive effects of these movements than I am in what the exact number is for climate sensitivity or how much information is in the genome.
If only there was a “Christian consensus.” For example, we all know the “scientific consensus” is for biological evolution. What about the Bible-believing Christians who think the Bible is inerrant, as those who sign membership for the ASA? My guess is that the “Christian consensus” on evolution is that “biological evolution of human from animal” is false. Or to play it safe, they may say it is a possibility (as does the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination). So if I’m correct, this shows how the church at large is behind the ball on science; and science impacts theology abd biblical hermenutics (by ruling out ‘de novo’ creation for man and ruling out the global/local flood of Noah with his floating animal refuge).
When I was a Christian, I really wanted to find out what the Christian consensus was, for the biological creation of man. Seems to me that the church at large is anti-evolution. If it wasn’t for the ASA, I likely wouldn’t have known there were some evangelical theologians that fully accept biological evolution. So I’m thankful to the ASA for that exposure.
…Bernie
(Friend of the ASA)
Yes, Bernie, I agree. It is a part of “integrity in the practice of science” to acknowledge whether there is consensus on a topic, and if so, what it is. It is quite appropriate to challenge the consensus. But it must be done with the rigor of the pertinent scientific methodology and must be published in the peer-reviewed journals, with independent corroboration and concurrence, before it is touted as a credible dissenting opinion.
I was earlier talking with some atheists regarding whether it was ok to lie or not. There was a quote from Martin Luther where he said it was ok to lie for a good cause, as in supporting the gospel. My thought is that the tremendous advancements we get from science may largely have to do with zero tolerance when it comes to lying. In science, you can’t even lie for a good cause.
…Bernie
(Friend of the ASA)
Rich wrote:
It’s also good to define what scientific consensus is not. It’s not polling individual scientists nor is it looking at current scientfic journals.
So Rich how do I determine what the concensus view is in your opinion.
There’s a related concern about consensus science that is worth discussing. Scientists might be hired or fired or fail to get tenure based on whether or not they profess adherence to the “consensus.” Peer review might be based primarily on conformity with the “consensus.” There is some degree of truth to this tendency but it can be described in terms that make it appear either a noble endeavor or a nefarious scheme.
The negative description is that this practice is a means of squelching dissent and maintaining purity of “consensus” despite any evidence to the contrary. The positive aspect is that consensus science, by definition, has been so thoroughly debated and analyzed that a contrary opinion is most likely based on a lack of knowledge of the literature, or an inaccurate scientific methodology. These characteristics are valid concerns in hiring, firing, tenure, or acceptance for publication.
Examples at the end of the spectrum are easy to understand. An astronomer professing geocentrism rather than heliocentrism would rightly have difficulty in obtaining a position. A geologist denying tectonic plate motion would have a hard time landing an esteemed position in geology.
The issue becomes difficult when consensus is attained within the community of active researchers, but a vocal minority outside of the community insists that not all data have been properly analyzed or taken into account to justify the consensus. These “dissidents” may either be wise voices calling for a dose of reality, partially informed advocates for other causes, or scientists with insufficient knowledge of the literature. The key differentiator can only be understood by examining the specific claims to ascertain whether they are in accord with accepted methodology and take proper account of published literature.
By the time any scientific conclusion reaches the stage of “consensus”, the issues have been debated in considerable depth. Disagreement with such consensus may or may not be adequate cause for hiring and firing, depending on the clarity and methodology of the dissent.
Google Scholar is a good way to determine it. What you want to see is a high number of citations. Google Scholar does a page rank but does it with peer-reviewed journals rather than normal web links. Here is an example for climate sensitivity. If you asked a climatologist which studies reflect the consensus view about CO2 climate sensitivity the following three which are on the front page would undoubtably mentioned:
This risks being tangential to the topic of ’scientific’ consensus: but I wonder if the same charity or flexibility of definition can be granted to a ‘theological’ consensus? Bernie spoke of wanting to know what Christians think. Many of the same difficulties in determining that are parallel to the challenges raised in defining a scientific consensus. Instead of peer review, you have the question of what/who is authoritative or Spirit-led. Maybe this is only clarified after centuries of retrospect. But science too, has its long histories of acceptance. Who are the real scientists is a parallel question to ‘who are or who speaks for the Christians?’. Anabaptists were dissident voices at one time. Now they have merged in with more mainstream Christianity and perhaps had some influence on it. Other movements prove to be cult-like and the leader ends up leading followers on a suicide mission becoming a footnote in cult history that is rejected as outside Christian orthodoxy. But at the time of events, separating out such movements may be tricky indeed.
–merv
On 1-14-2010 Bernie wrote, in part: “What about the Bible-believing Christians who think the Bible is inerrant, as those who sign membership for the ASA?”
Inerrancy is a more complex topic than what you seem to see. One definition of it is that “The Bible is without error in all matters of faith, history and science.” There may be some ASA members who adhere to that definition; I doubt that there are many; certainly not me.
I have been in corrspondence for a half century with a dear friend of mine, one I witnessed to when we were “young turks” and who subsequently became a Christian, writing me a letter of appreciation which is still in my files. My friend has become an “errantist,” holding that the KJV is the only truly inspired WORD and that all other translations are inferior deratives. My friend is no cretin; he is an ex-engineering executive from B. F. Goodrich and spent most of his illustrious career as a professor of computer science at a major US university. But my friend is in a decided minority among acaademic Christians.
Now there is a less stringent definition of “Bible Inerrancy.” I don’t like it myself, but it is sometimes used. It is “The Bible is INFALLIBLE in matters of faith and practice.” I understand where the people who hold this definitional view are coming from; for me it involves jumping through too many hoops (see I SAM 15 for example).
There are other views — those who hold that the Bible is just an interesting collections of ancient writings; those who hold that only the NT is inerraant/infallible, etc.
The point of all this rambling is this: Christians hold all manner of views on the Bible. While the issue is important to us, it is generally not a primary issue; we recognize as “brothers and sisters” those of almost any view on the issue. The gut issue is — Jesus Christ.
Cheers