As for the examples you give, no one ever said the scientific consensus can't be questioned. However, scientists won't take your challenge to the consensus seriously if you can't back it up with compelling evidence. Nor should they. 2/
-
-
Show this thread
-
Overthrowing or substantively modifying a scientific consensus requires evidence that conclusively shows that the existing paradigm is incomplete or in error. Just questioning because you don't like scientific conclusions ain't gonna cut it. 3/https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/on-the-right-to-challenge-a-medical-or-scientific-consensus/ …
Show this thread -
Indeed, all of those old consensuses, now overthrown, were changed through the scientific process and evidence. 4/
Show this thread -
Just because a current scientific consensus might be radically altered in the future due to new evidence doesn’t mean that "consensus is the death of science." That's just an excuse cranks use to reject science they don't like without having to back it up with evidence. 5/
Show this thread -
And, of course, scientific consensus is more often evolutionary than revolutionary, with each new theory taking into account the old theory; e.g., how relativity collapses into Newtonian physics at velocities that are a small fraction of the speed of light. 6/
Show this thread -
It saddens me to see someone like
@jorient post such nonsense about science. MDs need to have a better understanding of the nature of science. Hers is poor. 7/7Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Don’t underestimate the Max Planck method through which science advances : one funeral at a time. Which I’d guess to be far more common than a scientific revolution.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.