We have remarked previously upon the dubiousness of academic ‘consensus’. The position of a majority does not make fact of non-fact nor sense of nonsense. Perhaps nowhere is the principle of ‘consensus’ more ensconced than in the domain of science. Despite appeals to ‘empiricism’, the aforementioned dubiousness remains just the same, and is actually quite visible: consensus in one century—or even one generation—is always being overhauled or supplanted by consensus in the next. And scientists are by no means immune to the fallacy of
On ‘consensus’ in science
On ‘consensus’ in science
On ‘consensus’ in science
We have remarked previously upon the dubiousness of academic ‘consensus’. The position of a majority does not make fact of non-fact nor sense of nonsense. Perhaps nowhere is the principle of ‘consensus’ more ensconced than in the domain of science. Despite appeals to ‘empiricism’, the aforementioned dubiousness remains just the same, and is actually quite visible: consensus in one century—or even one generation—is always being overhauled or supplanted by consensus in the next. And scientists are by no means immune to the fallacy of