- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Joseph Romm makes a lot of good points in his article. However, I must disagree with his views on the role of consensus in science.
His position, if I may summarise, is that what matters for determining scientific questions is the weight of evidence, as found in publications in refereed scientific journals.
Fine, but how is a layperson to judge what the weight of evidence actually is? While it may be reasonable to expect a climate scientist to be familiar with the weight of evidence in the published literature (from reading enough of it), it is fantastic nonsense to expect that the typical citizen will be. The typical citizen needs to take someone's word for it.
If some scientists say that the evidence for human-caused climate change is clear and some say that it is non-existent, who is the layperson to believe? If the importance of consensus is rejected, then the answer is: whoever they want.
There is good reason for a layperson to accept as provisionally true what a large majority of qualified scientists believe on a scientific question. The reason is that, broadly speaking, the scientists form their beliefs based on the evidence. Laypeople cannot, as a practical matter, directly form their beliefs based on the evidence; they can only do it indirectly by accepting the views of those whose beliefs are evidence-based.
If laypeople adopted the rule of thumb that they will provisionally accept as true any scientific proposition endorsed by the large majority of qualified scientists (defined as those actively publishing in the area in refereed journals), then that would be a spectacular advance in the scientific rationality of our age.
