- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
But probably not.
Consensus is NOT a reliable guide to determining scientific truth. It is one reason I am not in favor of cookbook medicine based on consensus guidelines for making medical decisions.
The consensus is based on predictions that work.
Once you start making predictions that work, people might start to form a consensus that you are right. Until then, you're just bringing up irrelevancies, and employing every logical fallacy in the book.
Speaking with Dr. Normal Kaplan, one of the more distinguished members of the JNCC, regarding treatment for high blood pressure, he told me that he didn't treat patients according to the guidelines (I think Number 6 had just been released) because they were ALREADY OBSOLETE.
So what? Your argument that sometimes the consensus is wrong is completely tiresome, and proves absolutely nothing. Hell, it doesn't even suggest anything, much less prove it.
There are also lots of consensuses that have not been wrong. It doesn't prove that every consensus is correct, either. It's simply irrelevant, and such irrelevant arguments are typical from global warming deniers.
The way to argue with science is with your own science that better explains and predicts the data. You haven't done that, you're just unoriginally running your mouth about Galileo.
I would think that, rather than count noses and voting with the majority, you would prefer to look for truth. But that's just me. I'd like to think that, were I a physician in the time of Semmelweiss or Lister, I would have had the courage to note the consensus and ignore it in favor of actual new data.
Since you seem to be getting philosophical, I'll explain why your statement is complete nonsense.
If the science is correct, the cost of doing nothing could be global catastrophe and millions or even billions dead.
If the science is incorrect, the cost of doing nothing is a continuance of burning a precious, non-renewable resource, and inflating evil regimes like Saudi Arabia with tons of money.
Either way, if we do nothing, we lose. In the worst case, billions die, and in the best case, Saudi Arabia gets richer, and the air gets dirtier and harder to breathe.
