Consensus science refers to a technique utilized primarily by politicians, cause advocates, and various journalists to promote a program or cause in which the major tenets are primarily supported using existing or purported scientific consensus as an appeal to authority or appeal to the majority. The term is used by various persons and groups that are skeptical of certain scientific findings to denigrate or belittle the results and the scientists who produced them. Scientists use neither the technique nor the term as a part of normal operation. The term scientific consensus refers to the actual majority agreement within a particular field of science, while the term consensus science refers to a use of that consensus as a primary means to demonstrate, establish, or promote a view based on some scientific or statistical data which may or may not be part of some hypothesis or theory.

One who perceives a scientific theory to be supported by both scientific consensus and conclusive evidence would not consider it "consensus science", because a supporting argument can be easily formulated using the existing conclusive evidence without relying primarily on consensus for support. The term "consensus science" does not refer simply to a scientific theory which has a consensus, but rather to an argument in which the consensus of scientists is given as the primary support of the argument.

History and Background

Although it existed beforehand, the term consensus science gained wider exposure after a 2003 speech by Michael Crichton entitled, "Aliens Cause Global Warming" [1], in which he disussed what he believed to be the impropriety of basing scientific conclusions primarily on scientific consensus. This is the speech which fostered the quote:

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

--Michael Crichton

Another well known individual who publicly cautions about the proper role of consensus in science is Brian David Josephson, Nobel Laureate in Physics. Professor Josephson wrote: "if scientists as a whole denounce an idea this should not necessarily be taken as proof that the said idea is absurd: rather, one should examine carefully the alleged grounds for such opinions and judge how well these stand up to detailed scrutiny." Josephson's home page

Examples

It was widely believed that saccharine is dangerous based on the conclusions of animal studies conducted in the 1970s that appeared to show it could cause cancer. However, further studies have failed to confirm that analysis and none have shown a link between normal doses of saccharine and cancer in humans. In this case, the apparent scientific consensus turned out to be false. It is used as an example of the dangers of "consensus science".

There are a number of popular theories which are described by some as consensus science and much like the label junk science, there is often considerable disagreement as to which are supported primarily by consensus and which by conclusive evidence.

The term consensus science is often used as a criticism of the subject or theory to which it is applied, as use of the term implies that scientific consensus is used as the primary means of support. However, it can also be used non-judgmentally as a means of arguing the need for more or better research to clarify the validity of a given theory.

Criticisms

The major criticism of the consensus science term is the claim that by using the term, one is insisting that theories have conclusive or compelling evidence. However, a consensus can arise based upon unconfirmed results. Although reproducibility is an essential part of the scientific method, duplicating a result may be expensive, difficult, or blocked by ambiguous procedures in original study.

See also

• Consensus decision-making is a decision process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision
• False consensus effect refers to the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.
• Groupthink is one process by which a group can make bad or irrational decisions.
• Majoritarianism asserts that a majority is entitled to a certain degree of primacy.
• Philosophy of science studies the philosophical foundations, presumptions and implications of science.
• Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda.
• Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.
• Scientific consensus is the majority agreement of the body of scientists in a particular field of science.
• Scientific method is the underlying scholarly methods of scientific practice.
• Sociology of scientific knowledge considers social influences on science.

See also logical fallacies

• Logical fallacy
  • Appeal to authority
  • Appeal to the majority
  • Argument from numbers
  • Bandwagon fallacy
  • Special pleading

External Links

• "Consensus Science" and Public Policy
• Aliens Cause Global Warming - a Caltech lecture on consensus science
• Pathological, Precautionary and Consensus Science - An editorial from the Canadian Association of Physicists.
• In Support of Skepticism
• How dangerous are peer review and consensus in science?
• No Proof is Sufficient - An analysis of the reaction of researchers to measuring increased soil moisture when consensus supported climate models predict decreased soil moisture.