In a democracy, it kind of does. And science is a democratic discourse. If 99.9% of all scientists say global warming is real or evolution "just a theory", and 0.1% says it is not, the likelihood of the 99.9% being right is... well, 99.9%. When people mention how Einstein revolutionized science, you have to remember that he was the absolute, astounding and rare exception. The very vast majority of people who go against the grain of the dominant scientific belief tend to be crackpots. Always remember that.

You even write 'to spread what HE THINKS IS THE RIGHT MESSAGE' > Thats a mega important point. [...] Even though he might be wrong in the long run. And that's different from FAKE NEWS, where an actor spreads midsinformation with a malicious goal. Hence in the FAKE NEWS case, he would KNOW ITS NOT RIGHT but spread it ANYWAY.

I agree with you, "fake news" was a bad choice of words. I think that's the extreme end of a spectrum of "spreading non-true information", and I personally think that's what this doctor did. But my beef isn't even with that. It's perfectly okay (Very, very much encouraged, actually) to voice dissenting opinions in science! That is how science works, after all. And hence it is important to voice dissenting options in a scientific manner. Which brings me to:

> If he is convinced that this is how things are then there must be a (public) place to share those ideas.

There absolutely is: Peer-reviewed scientific literature. That's the place where scientific ideas are evaluated, based on their merit. You don't go call a press conference when you have a plausibly sounding hypothesis that might explain some observations you made. You write a paper about it, make your case, back it up with data and experiments, and evaluate your findings to see if they hold up to statistical scrutiny. And then an informed discourse among peers can start, and the facts & data will decide who is right/wrong. And if you want to prove something that most of the scientific community thinks is wrong, and when potentially many lives are at stake, then the burden of proof rests on you, and that burden is rightfully high. Much higher than "I called some friends and we our subjective impression is that this is overblown". And _THAT_ is why I think this is misinformation, even if I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions.

I think there are groups of people claiming that the scientific consensus on particular topics (climate change, COVID-19, etc) is based on ideological bias, vested interests, conspiracies, etc, rather than on good quality scientific evidence. However, most of those people have no problem with accepting the scientific consensus on unrelated topics. Few people are going to deny the scientific consensus on the citric acid cycle, for instance.

I think if you bet against the current scientific consensus, most of the time you are going to lose – but maybe not always. If we look back over the history of science, we can see areas in which what was once considered the evidence-based scientific consensus was later decided to be actually based on ideological bias. For example, a lot of 19th and early 20th century science on biological differences between different human descent groups was believed at the time to be based on good scientific evidence but is now in hindsight viewed as corrupted by racial prejudice. How can we be sure that a century from now, people might not look back on some elements of today's scientific consensus as also corrupted by bias/prejudice/ideology/etc?

But we don't know whether that will happen, and if it happens we don't know which parts of the contemporary consensus will be viewed as corrupted, nor what will be seen as having corrupted it.

I totally agree. I think it's due to our times, because many people just replace religious certainties (which seem to make a come-back this days btw) by scientific certitudes. Yet it's not how science works...

> "it looks right to the best of our knowledge but turned out wrong."

It's the underlying of scientific process and it needs to be repeated until integrated :) With that in mind, you can hold opinions (because it's useful in life ^^) while managing to change your own mind if a better explanation appears (even if no one is immune to confirmation bias but we can try, can we ?)

Probably. I would love to read the critique.

> Nobody should believe that 97% of scientists are wrong, or be trapped in an echo chamber.

Sorry, but I do not buy that argument. Scientists are, like the rest of us, subject to peer, media and economic pressure. They can make mistakes too. I hope they don't, but I can not religiously accept that science is infallible.

Authority arguments apply to science too.

It corrodes trust in our scientific institutions. When that pop something talk by an acclaimed psychologist turns out to be not only bullshit but outright fraud, it’s not a huge leap to project that mistrust onto e.g. the medical establishment or climate scientists.

It's not a good reason - this kind of manipulation is exactly why people distrust governments and "science".

I think there is a difference between "being shit" and "being fake" though. 'do you really think it’s true that 50-70% of biomedical research is fake?'

Fake seems more insidious and problematic.

Also this brings up a very troubling issue. If 90% of the "research is fake/shit" and lets say that means that 90% of the researchers are "fake/shit", then it means that 'scientific' consensus is also likely "fake/shit".

This is why I'm always skeptical of 'scientific' consensus. Science is about evidence, testing, etc. Not consensus - which is the realm of politics, law, etc.

And I'd suspect 99.99% of social 'sciences' is probably 'fake/shit' and that is used to push/change society/government/etc.

If everyone would think like you, science wouldn't progress far. Einstein would have never happened. While Einstein was busy developing his theory of relativity, the majority of the scientific world thought Newton is the end of it all. He was the crazy dude who dared to go against the order.. even annihilating academic friends by doing so.... However, the crazy dude was right.

Having Majority DOES NOT EQUAL Being right. Always remember that.

You even write 'to spread what HE THINKS IS THE RIGHT MESSAGE' > Thats a mega important point. If he is convinced that this is how things are then there must be a (public) place to share those ideas. Even though he might be wrong in the long run. And that's different from FAKE NEWS, where an actor spreads midsinformation with a malicious goal. Hence in the FAKE NEWS case, he would KNOW ITS NOT RIGHT but spread it ANYWAY.

See what I mean?

That's a dumb thing to say.

"Scientific consensus"? Really?

I suppose the first time a person chants "scientific consensus" everyone down to the last person is supposed to instantaneously change their minds and accept it, right?

The truth of the matter is that some people are slower to accept such truths than others. This doesn't mean that they're unwilling to accept them forever, but maybe it takes them a few weeks/months/years to arrive at the same conclusion as the rest. There's no reason to punish them or "tax" them for this.

Even if you could somehow determine that they never will accept it (rather than just being slow), those people are still necessary to keep the consensus honest. Without them, there won't be any criticism left, and then it just becomes a game for jackasses to try to get people to chant "scientific consensus" enough that everyone else must accept it instantly or be punished for not doing so.

What you're talking about isn't "consensus" at all, it's groupthink.

And it's pretty fucking sad that you've confused one for the other.

You alleged a conspiracy. If there's just one person ranting, there is no conspiracy; and a conspiracy of small number of people wouldn't be sustainable in a larger honest community, particularly under the scrutiny they are under. It's not a fallacy in this case: there is precious little middle ground for you to stand on.

> Regarding Steve McIntyre, he corrected Mann's data. He altered the consensus, and (for a short time) had the best existing analysis. That, by definition, makes him not a crackpot.

That makes him not a crackpot by your opinion. By mine, he barely altered the consensus with a minor correction while wildly overstating the impact of his changes, spending far more time doing advocacy, public relations, muckraking and FUD than actual science.

> Regarding antagonism, that's how science works. A good scientist will pick apart and search for flaws in any theory including his own.

I did not mean "I don't agree with your hypothesis" antagonism, I mean "I think you're a fraud!" antagonism. I think it's an understandable if unfortunate human response to get pissy and withdraw from engagement; and I think that's far more plausible than any actual fraud or conspiracy.

> They are responding in kind within the scientific endeavor. That corrupts the scientific process, regardless of how emotionally reasonable their response is.

Ah, so their internal shop-talk, posturing, boasting, etc. is part of the scientific endeavour, is it?

What I've seen is that their "responding in kind" takes the form of advocacy and outreach (like RealClimate.org, which -- not coincidentally -- was the subject of several of the more damaging emails), not substantial alterations to the practice of their science.

(Sidebar: I won't say there might not be substantial alterations to the research itself; for a parallel example in a different field, there are evolutionary biologists who are now choosing research topics specifically to provide more compelling evidence for evolution, rather than explore the unknowns of evolution, due to the rise of the "intelligent design" debate here in the US.

However, the pattern there is to become -more conservative- in spending time and effort in making the obvious even more obvious, not more in becoming more alarmist or speculative.)

Because most papers are not actively deceptive, they're just wrong. Or if not just wrong, they've got some critical error. Even great papers. Most people don't seem to get this.

Out of every paper I've read in my life (easily in the thousands now), the number that I think are/were unquestionable I can count on one hand, and have fingers left over. Case in point: once I made the mistake of pulling the "source paper" on Okazaki fragments (a Nobel-caliber discovery on a core part of DNA replication) for a seminar I was teaching in biochemistry. I thought it would be neat to go back to the source material for such an important discovery.

What I didn't realize is that the original paper was...let's just say that it wasn't really conclusive. It didn't take long for my students to rip it apart, and I was chastened. I should have gone into it with the attitude that I was going to show them how hard and messy real science is. Instead, I feel like I made them believe that their textbook was wrong!

Science is Hard. Even stuff that is considered Nobel-worthy after years of post-hoc examination is rarely definitive when it first gets published. These "reporters" who rush out and breathlessly write a fawning/sensational/scary article about something after they half-read an abstract on arXiv, but question nothing within the article itself, are tremendous hacks.

you got it right.. it's a bet

Science is not the ultimate source of truth, it is data with a risk reward attached that you can use for your own critical thinking

I do agree with you though that it should be heavily weighted in your thinking.

But people now are treating as an infallible religion that you can outsource your critical thinking to...which is scary imo.

No, I'm not opposing the science itself. I'm opposing confusing consensus with science. Science is the process of verifying truth through experimentation. If you skip the experimentation, and just say "trust us, we're Authorities, we all agree and we are sure beyond a doubt", that's not science, it's an ideological appeal to authority. Science is an important process, it's how humanity left the Dark Ages and entered the Enlightenment. Insisting that people cannot question the Official Consensus is backwards progress.

FWIW, I think the data supports much of the consensus in this report. But the consensus is not science, and confusing the two is detrimental to public trust in science and to the process of science itself.

There's a reason so many people are anti-science, and it's not because science is a bad process. It's because there's a culture that labels conclusions as science and says that they can't be questioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

And yet I did, and so did millions more. Now what? You think we're irrational? Ok, that doesn't fix it.

That is what "destroying trust" means.

Besides, that's not even accurate. Of course every time I get lied to by a scientist I should update a bit more towards believing scientists less. That's not only common sense, it's Bayesian rationality by the book.

How else do you think scientists reached consensus, exactly? Maybe the problem lies with the unqualified amateurs, who are, well unqualified to do that?

Scientific consensus is reached gradually over the course of decades, after a theory stood the test of many many challenges. No scientific theory is absolute and final and challenges are welcome, but they should be scientific, i.e. based on real data and statistically gounded analysis. Yes, it's hard to change consensus, not only in science but in any kind of community. This does not mean everybody in that community is corrupt. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If changing a consensus was easy, it would not be a real consensus.

>> a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter" > >This is essentially a class-ist argument: Someone who tells dirty jokes on netflix couldn't possibly, by the essence of their being, decide for themselves which scientist to talk to.

No it's not. Getting all background knowledge and staying up to date with all pubblications in a given scientific field is very difficult and time-consuming. Expertise does exist, and takes year to build. Somebody who tells dirty jokes on netflix likely does not have the time or energy do to that. Maybe, but quite unlikely.

> To the extent that science is used as the underwriter of various political projects, I think people are perfectly fine losing faith in it.

What is the alternative? If no policy should be based on science, then what? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? Shamans? Prayers? Goat sacrifices?

> 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good.

You really need to elaborate here.

Please, please, please. Do not confuse science (the process of discovery) with scientific institutions (the groups of humans with all their defects).

Truth is an abstract concept. You can't get hold of "truth" in raw form. Consensus is the only thing that validates a statement, and scientific consensus, that is consensus among experts following (each perhaps imperfectly) the scientific method, is the only thing that validates a scientific statement.

Even direct experience is not some failsafe -- a single person might just be misinterpreting, lacking skills and knowledge to understand what you see, or plain delusional (e.g. Wilhelm Reich and orgone or Linus Pauling and vitamin C).

>Scientific consensus is just educational and political tool. Get everybody on the same page. But it's pretty detached from the actual process of science itself.

Not according to any philosophy or practice of science that I know of.

>Questioning established consensus has been scientifically very valuable in the history.

Sure, but only to establish a new consensus, not to say that "my sole opinion, that remains my sole opinion, is more valid than the rest of the scientific world's".

But again, shaping where? In America not at all, as a matter of politics. In Germany, they seem to be listened to and shaping both discourse and policies. In UK, experts put up the fight and ended up being listened to. Not the first moment, but politics turned around.

> They are just voices in a crowd of equally credentialed institutions that have been caught doing very bad science

But that is the thing ... this does not seem to me to be the case. There was plenty of good scientific discussion. It more of seems to be the case that you had to cherry-pick studies other experts criticized a lot and then ignore said criticism.

This was absolutely done for political reason, but politicians doing it were already known for lying. The fans of these politicians are unmovable and their trust wont change either way. Their primary motivation seems to be destruction of government institutions anyway, it is not like that would changed.

> The Stanford Study being the best example.

The Stanford Study was being criticized from get go and the conflict of interests was pointed out quick. This particular study is good example of study being promoted for political reasons. And the people doing that should not be trusted. If the "one outlier in Stanford says it, therefore it is true" idea dies, that is a good thing for science. Institutional pedestals are bad for science, but knee jerk eagerness to promote outlier instead of consensus is even worst.

You should absolutely mistrust those who were involved in apparently bad studies. I just dont understand how outlier non-peer reviewed studies that got criticized quickly imply that you cant trust anything and anyone ever.

That is the irrational part and uneducated part. It implies not understanding how science work, how peer review works, how common disagreements are in science, how scientific consensus emerges, why it is important and how it fails. It implies uncritically trusting feel good outliers studies before they were peer reviewed and before multiple other studies were confirming results.

Possibly true if you yourself had credentials. If not, don't be so sure.

The funny problem with this one is that your local "official" memo is different from a local official memo 50, 500 and 5000 miles away.

Do you believe you are at the locus of the best science? I have medical experts in my family all over the world... They disagree.

They also agree though that the media is leading everyone (including politicians) around like puppets. I.e. they can see nonsense in the media being spouted, because they are experts.