Quote:
Originally Posted by JurisDictum
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Scientific consensus is part of the scientific process. First there are controlled tests demonstrating their hypothesis, then write a paper about it, then they submit the paper in a journal for professional review. Some scientists repeat the experiment and see for themselves. After awhile we will arrive at "accepted science." Theory is a kind of graduation point of ideas in science. They explain several phenomenon well at once.
While it would be nice if 100% scientists went with the best argument -- sometimes politics creep in. From the days of Galileo up to present -- (mostly conservative) humans have stifled science by insisting it conform to their religious or dogmatic views of reality. But eventually reality wins out and the scientist is validated after or close to death.
I'm not a climate scientist, just another liberal moron, I'm not going to be up to date with all the climate science literature. So for people like me -- which includes almost everyone -- scientific consensus is important. Say 97% of climate scientists think humans are causing the planet to warm. What fucking good reason do I have to oppose them, and think my religo-political view is superior?
|
97 percent of brain scientists think progressives have retarded mental development, what fucking reason do I have to think otherwise?