And if you made your politics based on the Newtonian consensus you'd make exactly the right politics in all fields concerning mechanics that don't involve extreme proximity to very heavy objects, speeds not attainable by objects we care about in our corner of the galaxy, or extremely precise clocks. Heck, the same is true to a somewhat lesser degree if you based your celestial politics on the consensus before Kepler, the epicycle models weren't half bad either at predicting celestial movement.
The point is that unless you're omniscient, using the best knowledge available at your time to choose which policies to apply is the best course of action. Of course it might later turn out to be wrong, but you don't know in which way it might turn out to be wrong.
Of course, my thoughts are that's fine so long as those proposing or supporting alternatives may still do so, rather than be silenced entirely.
This based on where political interference abuses the scientific consensus or manipulates it. As the OP said, there's a difference between science and consensus (not saying I disagree with the climate change consensus, I think it's absolutely an anthropogenic issue)
> This based on where political interference abuses the scientific consensus or manipulates it.
Funny how this standard is never applied to oil companies. You know, the ones that figured out half a century ago that climate change was a problem, and have been running an interference campaign since then?
Given the state of energy consumption today, the idea that it’s the green side that’s abusing the political process to get what it wants is downright laughable. Meanwhile congress is openly bought by fossil fuel interests, and we can’t even stop burning coal.
> not saying I disagree with the climate change consensus, I think it's absolutely an anthropogenic issue
Ahh, the anti-anti position, how annoying. You’re convinced that climate change is real, but you’re going to waste a lot of time making bad arguments about consensus and scientific change because…? For someone who thinks it’s “absolutely” an anthropogenic issue, you sure are trying to muddy the water a lot.
I think you're misreading me. I'm not on the denier side. I personally think we're spending far too much time around defining the problem (or that it exists...) instead of systematic approaches to change not driven by industry. I think we do need to be careful that the 'green' solutions do not become distractions from real solutions - i.e. things quietly proposed by the fossil industry that point the blame away or avoid solving the real problems.
I am always happy though to argue for space to exist for those that I disagree with to speak, we are in the most trouble when only the 'truth' - as much is it seems certain - is allowed to exist at all.
We tend not to care if we agree with the consensus, but imagine if Facebook/Twitter decided (or were influenced to...) that Solar energy solutions are misinformation and started removing/labeling that content. Is that fine, or is it a trickier question when you no longer agree with the 'truth' they are protecting?
That’s a whole lot of chaff for someone who claims to believe that global warming exists and is human caused. Also, you’ve moved the goal posts from “consensus” to “censorship” and dragging in Facebook for whatever reason, which is rhetorically suspect.
You’re wasting a huge amount of energy and time arguing about … well to be honest, I can’t figure out what your point is. Consensus is bad? Consensus is wrong because science changes? Consensus leads to censorship? Your point seems to shift around every time someone gives a counter argument, which makes me doubt that you’re acting in good faith.
Scientific consensus? Show me where. These meme is trotted out again and again, but it doesn't make it more true [1]. That the earth was round was well known during greek times, however it was also not lost the middle ages as it is often claimed. To cite the wikipedia article: "Belief in a flat Earth among educated Europeans was almost nonexistent from the Late Middle Ages onward"
The comment you're replying to. It's a case of a very smart person with a lot of knowledge distracting the conversation. Yes they added info, yes they are correct and yes it is a valid response to the OPs point. But here we are no closer to a solution or conclusive agreement in this thread.
Alright, make it simpler then. There was once broad consensus the earth was flat.
Only if you go back far enough to predate the notion of the scientific method. Plato wrote "My conviction is that the Earth is a round body in the centre of the heavens" in about 400BC, nearly 2500 years ago.
And even outside of science the notion that people thought the Earth was flat tends to be vastly exaggerated.
E.g. Dante's Divine Comedy contained a detailed explanation of how the Earth is round, including a description of how this means daytime comes at different times in different locations in the 14th century, well before the fanciful fictional descriptions of Columbus struggling to convince people the earth was round (rather than the more realistic argument over distance)
Dante wasn't first in literature by any means either, and at most the detail in which it is described might indicate it was something he may have thought his audience were unfamiliar with the consequences of, but it doesn't appear to be presented as some shocking, controversial idea even for a non-scientific audience, more than just illustrating the sheer scale involved.
It's interesting how the notion that the belief in a flat earth was widespread, may well be far more widespread today than the belief itself was.
