Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
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.
-‘Aliens Cause Global Warming’. Michael Crichton, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. January 17, 2003
Here are two flowcharts to help anyone apply Crichton’s methodology.
1. Crichton’s simplified science/not science methodology
Explanation: “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.”
2. Crichton’s science/not science methodology, with particular regard to reproducibility
Explanation: “Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.” Given that, as Crichton established, consensus = not science, and whereas the dictionary definition of consensus is a general agreement, then when a result is repeated (and agreed upon) by others, it will become the consensus and therefore cease to be science.
Further reading:
On evaluating claims of scientific consensus [link]
Coming to a consensus based on data, experimentation, and evidence [link]
Nicely done, Cam, and actually makes a lot of sense if you read his work!
Your flowcharts are very amusing.
Oh, I think the credit goes to Crichton. He’s the comedy genius here.