“… 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. …”
Though since then I read LoisL at May 22, 2019 at 1:46 am.
Well thank you Lois, in all the years we been butting heads on this, I’m pretty sure you never explained it quite like that. It’s relatable, I have a new found appreciation for what you’ve been trying to explain.
Are you asking if it’s a challenge to accurately completely define things, sure it’s a struggle - that’s why scientists are big on defining parameters, and error margins and such. Understanding definitions are big.
For instance, how do you define Philosophy? After all, in the early days scientists referred to themselves as “natural philosophers.”
Well I meant how like some say “that’s not a tree that’s just your concept of a tree”, or how do you define the divides along certain areas (like in body “parts”). And what about hot and cold which can be relative or strong and weak as well.