Isn’t that obvious? You rally people that support your guy and go to war with the people that support the other guy.
Comment on I believe science but I don't understand science. Does that make me religious?
redballooon@lemm.ee 8 months agoBut which scientist? There are so many doctors of biology that say the climate crisis isn’t a result of human activity.
And what to do if two scientists disagree?
theKalash@feddit.ch 8 months ago
cynar@lemmy.world 8 months ago
That’s where the scientific consensus comes in. It’s the latest group understanding.
On climate change, well over 99% of scientists agree it’s man made, and a serious issue. The only debate is over how bad it will be. All the controversy comes from either political or religious individuals, or from big oil funded scientists.
A good example of this process working is the room temperature superconductor paper, that recently made the news. Multiple groups immediately tried to verify it. Unfortunately, none could. The paper either missed critical information, making it useless, or was fraudulent. This was all before it was even “published”, and so subject to peer review.
cricket97@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Consensus does not mean something is true or even accurate. Plenty of historical examples of this.
cynar@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I never said that the consensus was always correct. It can be wrong, in both large and small ways. Its use here is for a layman looking in. The stronger the consensus, the more sure about the answer the community as a whole is.
I mainly brought it up as a counter to the common “both sides” thing that the media loves to do. They love creating controversy where there is almost none left.
Btw, if you provide some examples, I’d be happy to help analyze the type of failure involved. It could be enlightening to other readers.