Here’s a hint. Nowhere did I propose the idea of an “unquestionable scientific consensus.” I merely said that if you question a scientific consensus without strong evidence or rationale, scientists are under no obligation to take your challenge seriously. 2/
-
-
Show this thread
-
Actually, the post was not about any specific scientific consensus, but rather about a common refrain from people like Michael Crichton, “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.” This is BS. 3/
Show this thread -
After all, what is a scientific theory but, to put it most simply, a scientific consensus about the best current explanation for a natural phenomenon? Here’s the original post, for reference. 4/https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hostility-towards-scientific-consensus-a-red-flag-identifying-a-crank-or-quack/ …
Show this thread -
Of course, questioning the consensus is often necessary in science. Indeed, it is critical to scientific advancement. 5/
Show this thread -
However, there is a huge difference between questioning a current consensus and producing the data and experimental evidence to show that there is a real scientific reason to question it, and JAQing off about science. 6/
Show this thread -
Raising spurious or already answered questions about a scientific finding or theory one doesn’t like, belongs to the province of cranks and denialists, like creationists, antivaxxers, quacks, and climate science denialists. 7/
Show this thread -
When you have an actual scientifically valid reason, based on science, evidence, experimentation, and observational evidence, to think that the current scientific consensus about something is in error, then it is appropriate to challenge the scientific consensus. 8/
Show this thread -
When you don’t, then it isn’t. Guess which category antivaxxers, creationists, quacks, and climate science deniers fall into? 9/
Show this thread -
Basically, you have the “right” to “challenge” any scientific consensus you like, but scientists are under no obligation to take you seriously if you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. 10/https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/on-the-right-to-challenge-a-medical-or-scientific-consensus/ …
Show this thread -
Think of it this way: What’s more likely to be closer to the truth, a scientific consensus based on mountains of evidence, or the rantings of an antivaxxer, creationist, quack, or climate science denier? 11/
Show this thread -
I’ll conclude with a quote from Michael Shermer: “For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose ‘truths’ never pass scientific muster with other scientists.” 12/12
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.