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.
What Crichton was clearly implying is that just because a whole bunch of scientists agree on something, it doesn’t make it right or science (ie the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc). Science is science whether or not the majority agrees with the results. Even in your explanation from Crichton on how you formulated your charts, it shows you didn’t read what he said. He didn’t say that ONLY one person can be right in order for it to be science. His point was that it only REQUIRES one.
Here’s an example: If a consensus of scientists said 2+2=5, it doesn’t make them right just because the majority agrees. All it takes to put consensus science as the sham that it is is for one scientist to prove that 2+2=4. So if that one person has “results that are verifiable by reference to the real world” (as in provable or “reproducible” and not just theoretical like global warming), it doesn’t matter how many people agree otherwise if they’re wrong, it only matters what that one person can prove. No one has (or will) prove that anthropological global warming is real. That is why consensus science is not real science. So despite Al Gore claiming that the “consensus science” is in, it only needs one person to scientifically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change is natural to shatter the whole AGW theory and its consensus.
Tim has got it right. The flowcharts are a complete travesty of Crichton’s argument. If you read his whole article, instead of taking quotes out of context, it is clear that he has no problem with consensus per se. What infuriates him, and should infuriate anyone with an interest in true science, is the almost universal condemnation of “climate skeptics” on the basis that the consensus of scientists is against them. The science is in, they keep saying, but where (apart from the specialist meteorological journals, which most of us could not understand) is it?
I have just read scientificamerican.com’s latest “In Depth” report on “The Future of Climate Change”, which had links to 35 or so articles; as far as I could see, only ONE article dealt with scientific evidence at all – and that one, ironically, was entitled “How Sunlight Controls Climate”.