I came across this a couple days ago and think it’s about the best short description of “scientific consensus” I’ve read.
Anyone have anything to add to the Credible Hulk’s take?
Scientific Consensus isn’t a “Part” of the Scientific Method: It’s a Consequence of it.
Published by Credible Hulk on August 9, 2017
“… a scientific consensus is, by definition, an evidence-based consensus.A convergence of the weight of existing evidence is a prerequisite which distinguishes a knowledge-based scientific consensus from mere agreement.
This is critical, because the scientific enterprise is essentially a meritocracy.
As a result, it doesn’t matter if a few contrarians on the fringe disagree with the conclusions unless they can marshal up evidential justification of comparable weight or explain the existing data better.
The weight of the evidence is paramount.
In a nutshell, a consensus in science refers to a convergence of many independent lines of high quality evidence all leading the majority of active scientists in a given field to arrive at the same conclusion and/or complimentary conclusions. …”