[Jolly2 (OP)]

Surely an appeal to a scientific majority be that 51% of scientists believe or 90% believe; are simply another form of appeal to authority?

An appeal to the authority of the majority.

[alancalverd]

To the great annoyance of priests, politicians and philosophers, science proceeds by demonstration and disproof, not consensus.

Once again, the Einstein anecdote. Challenged to respond to a letter by 100 Nazi professors denouncing his work, he said "Delighted. Had I been wrong, one student would have been enough."

Don't confuse science and the scientific process with the consensus data in the handbooks of chemical and physical constants. The numbers themselves are under continuous revision but "good enough for engineering (medicine, navigation...)  within the published confidence limits".

[Jolly2 (OP)]

To the great annoyance of priests, politicians and philosophers, science proceeds by demonstration and disproof, not consensus.

Once again, the Einstein anecdote. Challenged to respond to a letter by 100 Nazi professors denouncing his work, he said "Delighted. Had I been wrong, one student would have been enough."

Don't confuse science and the scientific process with the consensus data in the handbooks of chemical and physical constants. The numbers themselves are under continuous revision but "good enough for engineering (medicine, navigation...)  within the published confidence limits".

I agree with you, my question was addressed to those who appear to repeatedly appeal to scientific consensus as evidence of an idea or technology being correct.

It appears they have taken empiricism and transplanted it onto scientific opinion where expert options become evidence and the scales tip where more scientists stand.  Yet as you rightly point out that's not science.

I was just wondering if they had another philosophy that drove their thinking?

[chiralSPO]

Evidence and proof are often only useful *among* experts. I can tell my colleague, "no this sample isn't the right compound: notice that the coupling constants for these peaks are too small, and the chemical shifts for all the peaks are a little too far downfield."

This argument may satisfy my colleague, or they may be able to point out, "no, it's still the right stuff, I just have the sample in a different solvent, so the peaks are a little different from what you're expecting."

If we were to debate further, we would be able to go into great detail and possibly even do a quick experimental check (ie compare to an authentic standard in both solvents). But if my colleague and I were each trying to convince an audience of non-experts of our own conclusions, one might have to resort to saying, "one of my colleagues believe this is the wrong substance, but these 29 other experts all agree that the first expert is mistaken because they are not accounting for subtle solvent effects."

Both sides of experts can provide reams of data and detailed analyses, but ultimately how can the non-expert decide what is legit and what isn't? (it's not trivial). Relying on consensus of experts may be their bast choice. If 29 experts say one thing, and 1 says another, the 1 is usually (but not always) wrong.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Evidence and proof are often only useful *among* experts. I can tell my colleague, "no this sample isn't the right compound: notice that the coupling constants for these peaks are too small, and the chemical shifts for all the peaks are a little too far downfield."

This argument may satisfy my colleague, or they may be able to point out, "no, it's still the right stuff, I just have the sample in a different solvent, so the peaks are a little different from what you're expecting."

If we were to debate further, we would be able to go into great detail and possibly even do a quick experimental check (ie compare to an authentic standard in both solvents). But if my colleague and I were each trying to convince an audience of non-experts of our own conclusions, one might have to resort to saying, "one of my colleagues believe this is the wrong substance, but these 29 other experts all agree that the first expert is mistaken because they are not accounting for subtle solvent effects."

Both sides of experts can provide reams of data and detailed analyses, but ultimately how can the non-expert decide what is legit and what isn't? (it's not trivial). Relying on consensus of experts may be their bast choice. If 29 experts say one thing, and 1 says another, the 1 is usually (but not always) wrong.

Exactly. I find money has an influence in this also.

I see your point with regards to the public. Still the public should maybe become slightly more literate with regards to science. Your bascailly saying census is the poor man's solution.  Certainly should not be a scientist. Troubling I see many use it.

[chiralSPO]

Still the public should maybe become slightly more literate with regards to science.

Absolutely! It might not be possible for a "citizen scientist" to figure out which group of experts is correct, if there is a disagreement among experts. But even just a mite of scientific literacy can allow one to identify scammers and quacks.

[alancalverd]

In legal proceedings, eyewitnesses are required to report facts - "What did you see? What did he say?" .

Only experts are allowed to express opinions "Given the length of the skid marks, what do you make of....".

Thus in science.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

In legal proceedings, eyewitnesses are required to report facts - "What did you see? What did he say?" .

Only experts are allowed to express opinions "Given the length of the skid marks, what do you make of....".

Thus in science.

Only experts umm, gate keeper now are you?

[Kryptid]

Only experts umm, gate keeper now are you?

Would you rather drive a car constructed by experts or novices?

[alancalverd]

Not a good test. 48% of the US electorate would vote for a novice/liar/bankrupt/coward/traitor if he wore a red hat.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Only experts umm, gate keeper now are you?

Would you rather drive a car constructed by experts or novices?

Depends on the expert and the novice. Many ametures unpaid as they are undertake their work as a passion.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Not a good test. 48% of the US electorate would vote for a novice/liar/bankrupt/coward/traitor if he wore a red hat.

Does Biden wear a red hat? He certianly has lied often, not sure about the bankruptcy his back handers from Ukraine and China seem to be keeping him afloat.

[charles1948]

You have to bear in mind, that there's really no such thing as "Scientists" . I mean they're not a separate species.

They're just human beings.  Who like people who agree with them.  And don't like people who disagree with them.

This is Scientific Sociology 3.1 :

"Suck up to the prevailing scientific theory. Get praised by its advocates. Only execute a swift reverse-ferret when the theory gets overthrown".

Isn't that the safe way in Science?   Who has the capability to be a genuine revolutionary, like Copernicus or Galileo?

[Kryptid]

that there's really no such thing as "Scientists"

Yes there are.

I mean they're not a separate species.

No one ever said that they were.

Who like people who agree with them.  And don't like people who disagree with them.

You can't generalize a group of people like that.

This is Scientific Sociology 3.1 :

"Suck up to the prevailing scientific theory. Get praised by its advocates. Only execute a swift reverse-ferret when the theory gets overthrown".

Citation please.

Isn't that the safe way in Science?

That isn't the only one.

Who has the capability to be a genuine revolutionary, like Copernicus or Galileo?

Anyone with compelling evidence that can stand up to scientific scrutiny.

[alancalverd]

"Suck up to the prevailing scientific theory. Get praised by its advocates. Only execute a swift reverse-ferret when the theory gets overthrown".

That is not the way to make progress in science, but it is the key to making money in a scientific career.

The value of research is the extent to which the result surprises you.

I stopped attending radiation protection conferences and seminars long ago because every "research" paper  merely confirmed that photons travel in straight lines until they interact with electrons.

Problem is that there is no other way of measuring "continuing professional development"  in this field, except by publishing papers reconfirming the bloody obvious or attending meetings where one's students repeat the same mantra. CPD is not science, but the means by which we protect our jobs and incomes by erecting hurdles for others to jump before being licensed to practise.