Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Merkuri" data-source="post: 5134329" data-attributes="member: 41321">The difference is that the scientific community has standards that they enforce.&nbsp; When a scientist publishes a paper and other scientists read it, they don't just go, &quot;That sounds good, I like it!&nbsp; I'll go with it.&quot;&nbsp; They try to repeat the experiment or they research their own data and see if it fits with the theory.&nbsp; Or they even create their own experiment to prove the same hypothesis.Saying something is done by consensus implies that it's just a show of hands.&nbsp; Like, &quot;Who wants pepperoni on the pizza?&quot;Science is more like editing and re-editing and re-re-editing something until it's perfect (which will probably never happen, not in our lifetimes at least, but that's what we try to approach).&nbsp; It's more like if you're building a house that has to be up to code and once it's built several people come in to check to see if that house is indeed up to code.&nbsp; Somebody could say that saying whether the house is up to code is a consensus, but each person inspecting the house has a list of things they're looking for.&nbsp; They're not just saying, &quot;Yup, looks like a good house to me,&quot; they're comparing features of the house to their list of features that make up a good house.Science is not a bunch of people saying, &quot;Yup, looks like science to me.&quot;&nbsp; It's a bunch of people holding up a theory to a microscope, inspecting it every way they can think of, and determining whether it fits the qualifications of a good theory.It's less consensus and more double-checking your work to make sure you had no typos.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Merkuri, post: 5134329, member: 41321"] The difference is that the scientific community has standards that they enforce. When a scientist publishes a paper and other scientists read it, they don't just go, "That sounds good, I like it! I'll go with it." They try to repeat the experiment or they research their own data and see if it fits with the theory. Or they even create their own experiment to prove the same hypothesis. Saying something is done by consensus implies that it's just a show of hands. Like, "Who wants pepperoni on the pizza?" Science is more like editing and re-editing and re-re-editing something until it's perfect (which will probably never happen, not in our lifetimes at least, but that's what we try to approach). It's more like if you're building a house that has to be up to code and once it's built several people come in to check to see if that house is indeed up to code. Somebody could say that saying whether the house is up to code is a consensus, but each person inspecting the house has a list of things they're looking for. They're not just saying, "Yup, looks like a good house to me," they're comparing features of the house to their list of features that make up a good house. Science is not a bunch of people saying, "Yup, looks like science to me." It's a bunch of people holding up a theory to a microscope, inspecting it every way they can think of, and determining whether it fits the qualifications of a good theory. It's less consensus and more double-checking your work to make sure you had no typos. [/QUOTE]

Verification