Scientific Consensus Fallacy

Dr. Mel Blumberg writes:

Hi Jordan, I enjoyed reading your comments. We certainly agree that the advertisement is a SCAM!  However, with all due respect , we disagree a bit on the meaning and use of the phrase "scientific consensus."  The word "consensus", is typically used in scientific discourse to mean... the converging opinions of a collective of experts in a particular field of science. It's not the sum of opinions or common beliefs,  it's what most of the people with advanced educations who think about and study these things believe right now based on scientific experiment. This doesn't mean that the "experts" are always right. Every once in a while, their flat wall of theories gets torn down, and the old bricks used to build a new tower of theories. But for the most part, opinions are all we have to cope with the enormous complexity of ourselves and the world we live in. Did you notice recently that there were "the opinions" (a consensus) of the CDC and others that  the vaccines are safe to use?  Let's take another example:  Common sense (and our experts) tell us that kids with high IQ's will get better grades and get into the best colleges. Then we come across a bunch of kids with very high IQ's who could not get into top schools. It looks like the experts messed up again Wow. Some consensus. Then, we start doing some homework and find out that behavior and behavioral outcomes are caused by a lot more than just  IQ. In this case the kids came from poor families in poor parts of town. No one in their family had gone to college, and most of their family though college was a waste of time, and you could make more money working in a factory.  Their attitudes about education were bad. They lacked good study habits. They lacked money. They had no way to do college visits. They lacked motivation. Their peers were all going to go into the Army. What does this all mean? It means that we, and the world we live in are complicated. There are no simple answers. If there were it would be high IQ = best college. Except in elementary math, we don't prove things right or wrong in science. We gain confidence with every experiment in its correctness or lose confidence in it if it doesn't. We don't change our theories based on a single experiment. All experiments have flaws. Instead, we build a consensus based on scientific evidence .  We don't know all the answers, and don't even know all the questions.

How can I make these suggestions about why that high IQ kid didn't get into college? Because that's the consensus of the smart and hard-working  people who study human behavior. We  can't just look at the simple case and prove it right or wrong for all time. Situations change; people change.  We have to look at the big picture, and try to form the best consensus--for now.

By the way, did you notice your argument was based mostly on appeal to Authority ? 

All best wishes, 

Stay safe.

Mel                  

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Dr. Mel Blumberg]

Hi Mel,

Thanks for the kind words and for engaging with me. I agree with some of the points you made and disagree with others. Actually, "disagree" is the wrong word since I think you are making my point in some cases but may not see it. For example, you wrote (emphasis mine):

[Scientific consensus means] the converging opinions of a collective of experts in a particular field of science. It's not the sum of opinions or common beliefs, it's what most of the people with advanced educations who think about and study these things believe right now based on scientific experiment.

If I'm reading this right, you are arguing modifiers while I am arguing the nouns themselves. You're saying it's not the sum of opinions or beliefs, it's converging opinions and current (right now) beliefs. But I am arguing that opinions and beliefs themselves are not scientific.

Recall that in my conclusion I wrote "the word 'consensus' itself suggests a matter of belief about what is true. That's not what science is about." Expanding on that here, the same would apply to the word "opinion." Indeed, "consensus" more precisely means "a shared opinion."

The overall point I am trying to make is that science is ultimately about facts, and that's why the phrase "scientific consensus" can be considered an oxymoron. Science does not advance by consensus. Here's how Michael Crichton put it:

"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."

Or as Richard Feynman put it, it doesn't matter what scientists believe: "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”

By the way, did you notice your argument was based mostly on appeal to Authority ? 

"Based mostly"? I think that's an overstatement. But, yes, fair point. I did it again above. My motives are pure, however. My intention is not to shame you into submission with those quotes. That is, I am not trying to use them the way people use "scientific consensus" in arguments. Rather, I am using them to lend credibility to my argument since I have little credibility on my own.

Still, I see your point. Feel free to ignore the names and continue to attack the argument (if you still disagree). I will refrain from responding: To whom shall we listen? Feynman, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived ... or you? :-)

Dr. Mel Blumberg writes:

Hi Again Jordan,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments. I appreciate it. I'll keep this short because I'm afraid we are getting too deep into the philosophy of science, and straying a bit too far from Logical Fallacies. If you read the last seven words of my definition of consensus, you will see that I agree a scientific consensus is based on experimental evidence -- in particular, a preponderance of the experimental evidence.  Anyway, I'm reading a great book right now. It's written by a well-know Physicist, researcher, and author by the name of Hans C.  Ohanian. (W. W. Norton and Company, 2008). It's title is "Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius." According to one of its reviewers, the book is an insider's view of how science really works. Hmm.  I wonder if Richard Feynman ever made any mistakes? Does being the greatest theoretical physicist of his time make him a genius in everything...including the psychology of human beliefs (cognitive psychology). I wonder...                

All the best to you and yours

May you be safe and well, 

Mel.

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Dr. Mel Blumberg]

Thanks, Mel. That book sounds interesting. I will add it to my reading list.

Feynman definitely made mistakes, and I'll bet he would have been the first to admit them. Maybe even cherish them. But I get your larger point: His legend has definitely exceeded his accomplishments. Having read a bit about him (including his autobiography, which I highly recommend), it seems he worked on the bomb and then didn't really do much of note again until the Challenger disaster. That's a pretty big gap. He was perhaps most famous for his wit and ability to explain science simply.

With Einstein, it seems, it was the same. His world-changing theory came early, he worked on the bomb and then there were decades of nothing much. I was amused to read recently about a plane he designed that people assumed would be the most excellent plane ever. (He was a genius, after all.) They built it, and it flew like a ruptured duck!

Anyway, I appreciate the engagement. I am still thinking this one through and trying to understand if the idea of "scientific consensus" is what Crichton said -- politics not science -- or if it can be valid and useful in the way you suggest. What I do know is that every time I hear it invoked, it is being used to shut down debate. Science is so politicized these days. I guess I have read too much because the invocation of consensus always bothers me. Some of the most interesting stories in science are about people who went against the consensus and discovered fascinating new things about the world.

Best Regards,

Jordan

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

Actually, it is not. This is important because using sources to add credibility is perfectly legit. The fallacy arises when one uses the authority as the reason why it is true rather than why it can be trusted or when the authority is not a legitimate authority (a legitimate authority can be an appeal to authority, but not necessarily a fallacious one). Also, a scientific consensus is not an authority; it is a collection of evidence. Consider:

In a 2001 UCLA study consisting of 30,000 participants, it was concluded that male gamers are significantly more aggressive than female gamers. Therefore, this is evidence for the claim that male gamers are significantly more aggressive than female gamers.

This is not a problem because the strength of the conclusion is appropriate to the evidence and the source referenced is legitimate. Now consider:

Corporation X says there's a "scientific consensus" that it actually works, and there are no harmful side effects. 

Here we are missing the conclusion, so we can't assume it "therefore the claim is true". In this specific example, it is more in line with a testimony attempting to add credibility to the claim as in "therefore you can trust it works." A scientific consensus would add legitimate credibility to the claim IF it were true, but as the OP illustrates, it was not—it was fabricated or exaggerated (or cherry picked).

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Two points I disagree with there.

1. The declaration that something constitutes evidence is a claim that relies upon the authority of the scientists making the assessment of it's reliability.  So a scientific consensus is a question of the consensus of a group of authorities, not a question of evidence itself (evidence is always subjective and never objective anyway). 

2. There is no genuine non-fabricated 'scientific consensus' on anything, because a subjective judgement has to be made as to who constitutes a scientist to begin with.  You can usually twist your definitions to simply disqualify all opponents of a given thesis as non-scientists and you can therefore create a scientific consensus against the thesis (or the other way around). 

There is a scientific consensus on X because if you don't believe in X you are not regarded as a valid scientist.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

[To GoblinCookie]

1) By this respect, nothing is objective. But it doesn't matter. "Evidence" is equal to "the evaluation of evidence". The appeal to authority , by definition, excludes arguments with evidence provided. This is a  display of an extreme form of skepticism which makes all evaluation of evidence a fallacious appeal to authority, which is absurd.

2) Of course a scientific consensus is "fabricated," (as in construct or manufacture) this is how a consensus is formed. Sure, one can twist a definition and bend data, lie, show bias, etc. but this is the whole point of a scientific consensus—manipulation of data and conjuring false conclusions is something that only a small fraction of experts can get away with, but not a whole field of experts. The meta-analysis process (how scientific censuses are generally formed) is methodology that weeds out outliers, bias, and other problems that don't accurately represent the data.

There is a scientific consensus on X because if you don't believe in X you are not regarded as a valid scientist. 

This is a cynical, conspiratorial, and false understanding of how the scientists arrive on a consensus.

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

 

1) By this respect, nothing is objective. But it doesn't matter. "Evidence" is equal to "the evaluation of evidence". The appeal to authority , by definition, excludes arguments with evidence provided. This is a  display of an extreme form of skepticism which makes all evaluation of evidence a fallacious appeal to authority, which is absurd.

2) Of course a scientific consensus is "fabricated," (as in construct or manufacture) this is how a consensus is formed. Sure, one can twist a definition and bend data, lie, show bias, etc. but this is the whole point of a scientific consensus—manipulation of data and conjuring false conclusions is something that only a small fraction of experts can get away with, but not a whole field of experts. The meta-analysis process (how scientific censuses are generally formed) is methodology that weeds out outliers, bias, and other problems that don't accurately represent the data.

Look, we both know that you can use claims of authority to back up and validate evidence.  That is a valid exemption to the general rule.  What you cannot do is use expert consensus in the place of evidence, as the former was itself evidence for anything. 

 

 
This is a cynical, conspiratorial, and false understanding of how the scientists arrive on a consensus.

It is a conclusion that is evident to everyone who looks at the kind of nonsense that was was expert consensus in past eras.  It also works in a more subtle way than I described.

Most the experts went to the same schools, received the same kind of education, have the same kind of background and so on.  That means they will arrive at similar conclusions given the same information, so if one of them is wrong it is likely they will all be wrong together rather than correcting the error as you suggested they would. 

Also more often than not it is that the conclusions do not actually follow from the data rather than the data is deliberately manipulated. 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

Look, we both know that you can use claims of authority to back up and validate evidence.  That is a valid exemption to the general rule.

Good. Let's start there. The claim is that X is true. Scientist #1, the foremost expert in the field, evaluates the evidence (that the rest of us don't understand) and confirms X is true. This doesn't mean X is true, but it is evidence that it is true.

What you cannot do is use expert consensus in the place of evidence, as the former was itself evidence for anything.

Expert consensus is the plural of a non-fallacious claim of authority. This is the heart of the scientific process - peer review . What we are saying is that Scientist #1-10,000 reviewed the data, and instead of just one expert authority confirming the claim, we have a majority. Consensus' are weak to strong based on the number. A stronger consensus IS INDEED stronger evidence for the claim. This isn't even a question in science—it is well understood.

I won't even get into the other comment. I have seen you argue that 1+1 does not equal 2, so I am not going down that rabbit hole. The more posts I see like this, whether it be denying election results despite overwhelming legal consensus or denying scientific facts despite overwhelming scientific consensus, the more I adopt a fatalistic attitude that humanity is screwed.

One rhetorical question (rhetorical because I am done with this discussion) I will leave you with. If you don't trust scientific process, what process replaces that as more trustworthy, reliable, and valid?

Jordan Pine writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

What we are saying is that Scientist #1-10,000 reviewed the data, and instead of just one expert authority confirming the claim, we have a majority. Consensus' are weak to strong based on the number. A stronger consensus IS INDEED stronger evidence for the claim.

I’m not taking a side in this particular debate, but I have to disagree with this one particular statement. Does it matter if 10, 1,000 or 10,000 scientists review the data of one scientist’s experiment and confirm it? Is that what scientific evidence is supposed to mean? Or is science about replicating experiments, not replicating opinions?

This becomes a major issue with highly politicized topics in science. Here it becomes all but guaranteed a consensus will arise as it is essential for peer acceptance and career advancement. Contrarians are quickly marginalized and dismissed — often literally. In some cases, the consensus involves many scientists who are not specialists in the specific type of science adding to the numbers of the consensus just because they have the authority of the “scientist” title. Etc.

I think this was what Michael Crichton meant when he said: “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.”

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

[To Jordan Pine]

Or is science about replicating experiments, not replicating opinions? 

Science is far more than experiments. The scientific method is applied to longitudinal studies, case studies, quasi-experiments, qualitative research, and others as well. Even classical experiments (where causation is established) can show different results due to flawed methodology, or the researchers could draw a erroneous or misleading conclusion from the same experimental results. It is often messy. Scientific opinion differs from the casual use of "opinion"... just like a legal opinion is different.

Vaccine safety is a good and timely example here. There are countless studies and replicated research done in the last 50 years or so in this area. There is no way the average person can effectively evaluate this body of research—it's not just the lack of time; it's the lack of understanding of a) scientific research in general and b) the area-specific specialized knowledge needed to understand the conclusions of the research. This is where scientific consensus comes in. There are career researchers who are experts in related fields (medicine, virology, disease, genetics, etc.) that do devote the time to evaluating the research and do fully understand it. When experts from multi disciplinary fields form a unified opinion (in this case, that vaccines are safe and effective), we get a scientific consensus.

Here it becomes all but guaranteed a consensus will arise as it is essential for peer acceptance and career advancement. 

In one sense this is true. If a scientist presents flawed research, fabricated data, and is in the pocket of an interest group; and argues against the prevailing theory/consensus for that reason, they are rightfully seen as illegitimate.

Remember that scientific consensus is often done globally. The other 200+ countries don't care about our politics. For every interest group hiring their own "scientists" there are a hundreds of independent researchers with no interest in the outcome. For every "big pharma," there is a "big placebo" (homeopathy, eastern medicine, supplements, etc) with pockets often just as deep. We can't deny that politics and money do corrupt the process, but in today's global scientific community, those effects are either negligible or short lived (as in fake research being quickly discovered and recalled).

 

Contrarians are quickly marginalized and dismissed 

In the cases I described above, yes. Science is all about being contrarian. Studies that confirm existing studies simply add to the data. No scientist gains fame by just confirming something already known scientifically. It is the contrarians who are actually right that get the fame, money, and advancement.

In some cases, the consensus involves many scientists who are not specialists in the specific type of science adding to the numbers of the consensus just because they have the authority of the “scientist” title.

Sure. And in these cases, the "scientific consensus" means much less.

With all due respect to Michael Crichton, as I wrote, we cannot expect the average person to "verify" the available body of research on every scientific issue. This is why scientific consensus is so important.

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

The scientific method is applied to longitudinal studies, case studies, quasi-experiments, qualitative research, and others as well.

Sorry, I'm going to need clarification here. How can the scientific method, which by definition "develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments" (1) be applied to things like case studies and qualitative research? Aren't you conflating science and the scientific method here?

The field of science certainly involves the things you mentioned, for better or worse. The scientific method, however, is something quite specific in my understanding. For example, we insist on randomized, controlled, double-blind studies in medical science. We don't approve pharmaceuticals based on case studies and qualitative research.

 

Even classical experiments (where causation is established) can show different results due to flawed methodology, or the researchers could draw a erroneous or misleading conclusion from the same experimental results.

Yes, absolutely. But doesn't this make my point? If 1,000 scientists shared the same opinion about the data from one scientist's classical experiment (or, more realistically, one group of scientists' experiment), and the experiment ended up being flawed in one of the ways you mentioned, it would become obvious that the number of scientists who signed on did not constitute "stronger evidence for the claim," as you put it.

This is not even a hypothetical. The so-called "replication crisis" happening in science right now has toppled many "scientific" conclusions. But it has grabbed the most headlines when it has toppled conclusions that were cited and repeated by hundreds of other scientists, thereby demonstrating replication of scientific opinion is a bad way to determine what is true. That is to say, one failed replication of an experiment calls into question and is often fatal to a scientific conclusion, regardless of how many thousands of scientists praised, cited or otherwise agreed with the conclusion of the original experiment. "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong," Richard Feynman once said. "That's all there is to it.” (I know you share my admiration of Feynman, so please excuse my sneaky appeal ;-)

Remember that scientific consensus is often done globally. The other 200+ countries don't care about our politics. 

To be clear, I was using "politics" more broadly. I mean it in all senses of the word: internal politics, US politics (currently impacting Covid policy), Left/Right politics (currently impacting definitions of gender in many countries), geopolitics (currently impacting what pronouncements the WHO is making) and global politics (currently impacting the pronouncements of the IPCC).

It's somewhat of a straw man to use "a scientist [who] presents flawed research, fabricated data, and is in the pocket of an interest group and argues against the prevailing theory/consensus for that reason." Much more likely these days is a reputable scientist who runs afoul of a growing consensus on a hot-button issue (often unwittingly), and is then excommunicated from the scientific community. There are even stories about Nobel Laureates who have suffered this fate -- of which perhaps you are aware.

No scientist gains fame by just confirming something already known scientifically. It is the contrarians who are actually right that get the fame, money, and advancement.

Really? I can think of three rich and famous scientists right off the top of my head who did just that: Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Dr. Fauci. All three became rich and famous explaining consensus science to the public and representing politically safe scientific opinions. I'm struggling to think of one recent scientist who became rich and famous by being a contrarian. Are there any Galileos or Feynmans these days?

With all due respect to Michael Crichton, as I wrote, we cannot expect the average person to "verify" the available body of research on every scientific issue. 

The late Michael Crichton was above average on this topic, if that's what you meant. But I take your point. That this is true is also where the danger lies. We have seen, again and again, that institutions people used to be able to trust have been corrupted by politics. In my former field, journalism, trust in media has eroded away to nothing for this reason. I don't think I need to detail what has happened to our government institutions. Unfortunately, the same cancer that caused this sad state of affairs seems to spreading in the sciences as well. Thus, I think we face the same dilemma that I often discuss with other media critics: We certainly can't expect the average person to do his/her own research and verify what is presented as truth, but we also can't trust those who claim the title of expert to follow the professional and ethical principles that used to guide them.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

[To Jordan Pine]

How can the scientific method, which by definition "develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments" (1) be applied to things like case studies and qualitative research? 

Because "tests and experiments" include more than the classical experiment in science. There is no question that the classical experiment is the gold standard here, but do some googling on "types of research." The scientific method certainly applies. Really, this is is a college course in itself, not something I can answer in a post (I did teach it one semester - "Research Methodology").

 If 1,000 scientists shared the same opinion about the data from one scientist's classical experiment (or, more realistically, one group of scientists' experiment), and the experiment ended up being flawed...

This is a problem if scientific consensus works as you think it does... scientists just saying "i agree" with the most accepted solution. But that's not how it works. Scientists to sign on to a consensus risk their reputations. Pick any other field... let's say law. One lawyer says in his legal opinion, it is okay to shoot a cop if you think the cop is having racist thoughts (a bad legal opinion). Through the wisdom of (expert) crowds, that would never get a consensus. It just doesn't happen with a well-researched topic.

Insofar as the replication crises, this is very different from consensus. You have one or two seminal studies that were correctly done, but don't generalize (take the Standford Prison Experiment). Until it is replicated, we can reference it and use it, understanding the limitations. This is nothing like the consensus for evolution, climate change, vaccine safety, GMO safety, etc.

Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Dr. Fauci did not gain fame by confirming things... they gained fame by becoming public figures. Not sure about Fauci these days, but neither Nye nor Tyson are researchers - they are science communicators. As for scientists who make breakthroughs and don't just confirm things we already know, look here for starters: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/top-ten-scientific-discoveries-decade-180973873/

We certainly can't expect the average person to do his/her own research...

We don't need more people "doing their own research;" we need more people educated on how to research, when to defer to experts, and how to know when they are being misled. My sister "knows" the recent election was fraudulent because "she did her own research." Her sources: OAN Network, and YouTube Videos. I have essentially the same argument with her about trusting the overwhelming legal opinion by the FBI, Homeland Security, DOJ, US Election Assistance Commission, over 55 Federal and State courts, Election Security Experts and Computer Scientists, 31 Former Republican Members of Congress,... but, according to her, we can't trust these because... politics, money, corruption, etc. So who does she trust? the My Pillow Guy.

Expert opinion matters. Scientific opinion matters. If 90+% of qualified experts in a specialized field are telling me something regarding something in that specialized field, and I have only "Google knowledge" of that field, rejecting their findings over "my own research" is almost certainly (at least consistently) likely to lead me to the wrong conclusions.

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

"tests and experiments" include more than the classical experiment in science.

But I was talking about case studies and qualitative research. I don't see how those could be considered "experiments" in any meaningful sense of the word. They are inherently subjective, and experiments must be objective to be valid, no? Can you run a subjective experiment and draw conclusions from it?

Maybe your use of the word "include" means we are saying the same thing? I don't deny subjective methods are useful in science. I suppose one could argue they are useful for the developing and modifying hypotheses, which means they are a part of the scientific method. Is that what you mean?

 Scientists to sign on to a consensus risk their reputations.

Is that true? Let's take just one of the examples we both raised: climate change. Is there really any reputational risk at this point in signing on to the consensus? On the other hand, I have read about several scientists who agree that global warming is happening and agree that manmade emissions are a significant cause, but disagree that it constitutes an imminent catastrophe. Those seem to be the scientists who pay a reputational price.

I can think of at least one example that supports your claim: biological sex differences. It is still the consensus that there are only two sexes and that males and females are inherently different in many important ways. However, it is a reputational risk to espouse that consensus these days. I think we can even imagine a time in the not-too-distant future when the consensus will actually change because of that risk, whereas it will become another point in favor of my argument.

Insofar as the replication crises, this is very different from consensus. You have one or two seminal studies that were correctly done, but don't generalize

Oh, it is so much worse than that! If only it were about one or two seminal studies that didn't generalize. "A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment," according to Wikipedia, and "50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments."

That 50% statistic seems to be the norm in the fields facing the worst replication crises. In psychology, on average half of replications fail and "questionable research practices ... have been identified as common," per Wikipedia. In medicine, a "survey on cancer researchers found that half of them had been unable to reproduce a published result."

Professor John Ioannidis, who is at the forefront of this issue, has gone so far as to argue that "most clinical research is not useful."

Now, perhaps suggesting this represents failures of "scientific consensus" is unfair. Many of these findings had not reached consensus status. I'm thinking more about the ones that represent commonly held beliefs by the scientific community. As the Atlantic article I linked to puts it: "famous, long-established phenomena—the stuff of textbooks and TED Talks."

"There’s social priming, where subliminal exposures can influence our behavior. And ego depletion, the idea that we have a limited supply of willpower that can be exhausted. And the facial-feedback hypothesis, which simply says that smiling makes us feel happier," the author writes. "One by one, researchers have tried to repeat the classic experiments behind these well-known effects—and failed."

 

Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Dr. Fauci did not gain fame by confirming things... they gained fame by becoming public figures. Not sure about Fauci these days, but neither Nye nor Tyson are researchers - they are science communicators. 

I wasn't limiting my claim to researchers. I believe we were talking about scientists in general. Nye was a bad example as he's a mechanical engineer. But Tyson is an astrophysicist and planetary scientist, and Fauci, who oversees extensive research, has clearly become famous (and rich) by communicating consensus thinking on pandemics. I don't know if any of the guys in the Smithsonian article were made rich by their discoveries, but I think it's a stretch to call them famous.

Expert opinion matters. Scientific opinion matters. If 90+% of qualified experts in a specialized field are telling me something regarding something in that specialized field ...

I agree, especially within those parameters. I guess we are thinking of different things. In my experience, people seldom question the consensus on matters where specialized, field-specific expertise is required. It's the more general and politicized topics where the abuse of the term "consensus" is most commonly found. To use climate change as the example again, few are challenging the consensus regarding the physics of climatological warming in the presence of greenhouse gases. But many are challenging the "scientific consensus" that we need to achieve the emission-reduction targets of the IPCC or Paris Accords in order to prevent global catastrophe. 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

[To Jordan Pine]

I think we are finding more common ground here :)

Regarding subjective experiments, this gets into the philosophy of science (science is built on a philosophical foundation). Essentially, there is a subjective element to everything since all data and information is filtered through the human mind and senses. The subjectivity is on a continuum. Consider the classical conditioning experiment on The Office. If this were non-fictional, we can write up a paper with all the common sections including methodology, limitations, and conclusions. Our conclusions are interpretive based on the data and this is where we suggest generalization. A scientists reading the paper would realize that it was a case study (sample of one - Dwight) but case studies, when done properly (scientific method), provide what is called a theoretical foundation for further studies. So other researchers might take this to the next level. Of course, media sites looking for clicks will make outrageous headlines about the study that bastardize the data for clicks, then people will blame "science," rather than the media. C'est la vie.

Point taken about scientists risking reputations. I oversimplified that. The risk is only if the consensus turns out to be wrong. Also, the closer to unanimity the consensus, the less of the risk. You are correct that if it turns out climate change has nothing/little to do with human activities, the risk would be quite low for those who said it did.

You raise two excellent and important points in your comments: 1) people failing to separate science from politics and 2) changing social conventions.

Science demonstrates that 1) the earth is warming and 2) human activities is the primary factor. What it doesn't or can't tell us is what to do about it. A scientific organization can create a model that makes predictions (this is a mathematical and speculative model) and issue warnings or recommendations. It is up to politicians to decide if, when, and how to act given other factors related to politics. Most people when they think of the issue of "climate change" they fail to differentiate the three different issues (warming, human-caused, solutions). When we talk about an overwhelming consensus on climate change, this just covers the first two. As far as I know, there is no consensus on how imminent the threat is, or more specifically, what the effects will be in X years. I have seem models with predictions all over the place. I can't imagine any scientist's reputation being hurt by rejecting a speculative model, and if it does happen, it is an injustice.

2) changing social conventions: The idea of only two genders is not a scientific question, but could better be described as a social convention. Remember that science is built on a philosophical foundation. That philosophical foundation comprises cultural components which includes the idea of gender. This doesn't change biological facts; but it does change the narrative upon which conclusions are built. If a researcher refuses to acknowledge that there are more than two genders, they are not being "scientifically" accurate; they are simply being socially unacceptable. This would be like a researcher using the word "negro" for Black people.

This also leads to a related problem of activism masquerading as science. An example of this is critical race theory. This is hugely problematic because it attempts or hijack the legitimacy of science and in turn, destroys the legitimacy of science. Yes, that is a problem.

Regarding replication: When I wrote about one or two seminal studies, I meant that as contrasted with countless studies done over decades, where we usually find scientific consensus. Agreed, many studies don't replicate, but those are all studies done on different issues (i.e. one or two studies times hundreds of topics).

It's the more general and politicized topics where the abuse of the term "consensus" is most commonly found.

I think we are in agreement here. And perhaps the media/public is mislabeling these a "scientific" consensus to sound more legit when in fact it is not. Take for example school openings, lockdowns, eating at restaurants, etc. during COVID. This is NOT a scientific issue. Science can inform such political decisions, but they are ultimately a political decision. Fauci/Science can tell us that the data shows there is an X% risk to people in Y demographic if they eat out. Now it is up to the politicians/people to decide what to do with that information. People who claim "science is on our side" (inferring a consensus) when arguing for lockdowns, school openings/closings, and other behavioral/policy issues are wrong and abusing the concept of the scientific consensus, which ultimately leads to more people rejecting the idea of a scientific consensus. This is extremely damaging and problematic when such a consensus confirms the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that can and will save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Jordan Pine writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Nodding and agreeing until:

The idea of only two genders is not a scientific question, but could better be described as a social convention ... If a researcher refuses to acknowledge that there are more than two genders, they are not being "scientifically" accurate

Is that true? Gender is still defined as "either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones."(*) I know it is now politically correct to consider synonymous "gender" and "gender identity," and maybe one day the (consensus) definition of gender will change to reflect this new meaning, but we aren't quite there yet. 

I don't want to get hung up on the word, though. Rephrase my argument to use the word "sex," so we can focus solely on the scientific aspect, the biology. Arguing the consensus view among biologists that there are only two biological sexes is reputationally risky because of the politics. As you put it, you are supposed to "acknowledge" there are more than two sexes these days. Vocally defending the consensus view would be career suicide. Meanwhile, I'll wager any scientists involved in voicing contrarian ideas like this one are being praised and promoted.

It seems we now agree about everything else. I could give a "well said!" to several of the points you so eloquently made. Thank you for the exchange!

-----
(*) Google's English dictionary entry from Oxford Languages

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

I read that article and it is an interesting read. I will claim some level of ignorance here because biology and genetics are not my areas, but the article seems to make a decent case that what we understand as "sex" is more accurately on a spectrum than a binary.  I think relating back to consensus your concern is that the politics and activism is fueling the redefinition of biological sex. This may be the case. I think if biologist A says there are more than 2 sexes and biologist B says there are only 2 sexes, the disagreement isn't with the science, but with the definition of "sex." Any consensus on the issue would be with the social convention—how we choose to define "sex" in our society. Politically, in my opinion, getting rid of the male/female dichotomy would open up so many cans of worms that the harm would far outweigh the benefits, but that is a different discussion for another forum :)

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

 
Good. Let's start there. The claim is that X is true. Scientist #1, the foremost expert in the field, evaluates the evidence (that the rest of us don't understand) and confirms X is true. This doesn't mean X is true, but it is evidence that it is true.

Yes, but it does not work backwards.  We can argue that the evidence is valid because there is

 

I won't even get into the other comment. I have seen you argue that 1+1 does not equal 2, so I am not going down that rabbit hole. The more posts I see like this, whether it be denying election results despite overwhelming legal consensus or denying scientific facts despite overwhelming scientific consensus, the more I adopt a fatalistic attitude that humanity is screwed.

One rhetorical question (rhetorical because I am done with this discussion) I will leave you with.  If you don't trust scientific process, what process replaces that as more trustworthy, reliable, and valid? 

I was not arguing that 2+2 does not equal 4.  I was arguing that the basic arithmetic contains hidden assumptions that are necessary to arrive at any conclusion at all.  If you change the hidden assumptions about the nature of 1s, you can arrive at a whole number of different outcomes that aren't 4.  That was part of my general philosophical argument that any conclusion requires prior assumptions.

The answer to your question would be that there does not have to be one.  Scientific process can be unreliable but it can still be more reliable than all other alternatives, of which there are not exactly many anyway.  What would the alternatives be anyway?  Divine Revelation, Throwing Dice, believing whatever you want to be true? 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

1. The declaration that something constitutes evidence is a claim that relies upon the authority of the scientists making the assessment of it's reliability.  So a scientific consensus is a question of the consensus of a group of authorities, not a question of evidence itself (evidence is always subjective and never objective anyway). 

Because experts working in a specific field are usually best-placed to analyse the evidence, since they are familiar with the procedures, jargon, and pre-existing literature. Thus, while there will always be an element of subjectivity, expert analysis gives us the best approximation of what the evidence  would  suggest. The subjectivity needn't compromise the results (as long as scientists are honest with the data they've collected, i.e. it's not fabricated or something), and sometimes it's a pretty obvious - and so objective - observation. 

It's like saying, "I wasn't taught Maths. I was taught a teacher's interpretation of Maths." Yes, technically correct, but pointless to bring up - how else is Maths supposed to be taught? The question is, "was what you were taught useful and accurate?"

2. There is no genuine non-fabricated 'scientific consensus' on anything, because a subjective judgement has to be made as to who constitutes a scientist to begin with.  You can usually twist your definitions to simply disqualify all opponents of a given thesis as non-scientists and you can therefore create a scientific consensus against the thesis (or the other way around). 

A scientist is a professional researcher who discovers knowledge using the scientific method, a set of principles for empirical study of the natural world (and its constructs). As long as one follows this method, they are a scientist (since these principles allow for the best-quality hypothesising, research and review to come about). Someone who does not follow these common standards is a pseudoscientist, and their results are unlikely to be reliable (see homeopaths, who refuse to use scientific principles in their 'practice').

As for being against the mainstream view, it does not automatically make you a pseudoscientist, as long as you are practicing good science (see Galileo). However, people with heterodox views on many scientific phenomena are almost always pseudoscientists who ignore (rather than evaluate) consensus data in order to advance an agenda (e.g. anti-GMO, climate change denial, etc.)

There is a scientific consensus on X because if you don't believe in X you are not regarded as a valid scientist.

Nope, there's a scientific consensus on X because, after much research and careful review of stacks upon stacks of pre-existing literature, researchers worldwide have converged on a single interpretation (or range of supported interpretations). People with different views are welcome to refute the evidence if they want, or carry out their own studies and present their findings up for peer review...but they must meet common standards for scientific research.

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

 
Because experts working in a specific field are usually best-placed to analyse the evidence, since they are familiar with the procedures, jargon, and pre-existing literature. Thus, while there will always be an element of subjectivity, expert analysis gives us the best approximation of what the evidence  would  suggest. The subjectivity needn't compromise the results (as long as scientists are honest with the data they've collected, i.e. it's not fabricated or something), and sometimes it's a pretty obvious - and so objective - observation. 

It's like saying, "I wasn't taught Maths. I was taught a teacher's interpretation of Maths." Yes, technically correct, but pointless to bring up - how else is Maths supposed to be taught? The question is, "was what you were taught useful and accurate?"

There is nothing there I disagree with, I was never arguing that subjective equaled wrong. 

The real only problem here is that probable does not imply is.  Just because the experts are probably right, does not mean that they are in this instance. 

 

 
A scientist is a professional researcher who discovers knowledge using the scientific method, a set of principles for empirical study of the natural world (and its constructs). As long as one follows this method, they are a scientist (since these principles allow for the best-quality hypothesising, research and review to come about). Someone who does not follow these common standards is a pseudoscientist, and their results are unlikely to be reliable (see homeopaths, who refuse to use scientific principles in their 'practice').

As for being against the mainstream view, it does not automatically make you a pseudoscientist, as long as you are practicing good science (see Galileo). However, people with heterodox views on many scientific phenomena are almost always pseudoscientists who ignore (rather than evaluate) consensus data in order to advance an agenda (e.g. anti-GMO, climate change denial, etc.)

The methods are for those in the given field to establish, not those from other fields.  There is little point in calling something in a field you are not an expert in pseudoscience because that field establishes the appropriate methods for itself.  I guess medics would be qualified to disregard homeopathy, but there could never be a consensus on that matter because the homeopaths would have to part of that consensus as they are also medics, if wrong ones.  This often works out well (it certainly does for homeopathy) as some fields are based upon clearly wrong premises, but it works regardless of truth or falsity of the ideas you are targeting for the 'treatment'. 

You are forgetting that there is a difference between objectively being something and being subjectively recognized as something.  What matters here is not that my consensus experts are actually any good at science, but that people believe them to be.  Once I establish (by whatever means) that all opposing ideas are forms of pseudoscience and their practices invalid, I can therefore declare a consensus exists because those disagreeing with me are no longer scientists.  

You are giving me an idealized scientist and an idealized science.  Actual people with heterodox views know through bitter experience the falsity of your claims, it does not matter how right they they they are and how strong the evidence they think they have for their conclusion; the existing consensus right or wrong has a quite terrible power to keep itself there. 

That is because if you disagree with the consensus view, you undermine your reputation and therefore you are no longer considered an expert.  Methods produce the results the methods produce (right or wrong), so if a conclusion following from a method proves you wrong, you declare invalid the methods that lead to the undesirable conclusion and your errors are now irrefutable. 

As evidence is subjective, if I come up with evidence that proves me wrong; I can simply refuse to recognize it's validity. 

 

Nope, there's a scientific consensus on X because, after much research and careful review of stacks upon stacks of pre-existing literature, researchers worldwide have converged on a single interpretation (or range of supported interpretations). People with different views are welcome to refute the evidence if they want, or carry out their own studies and present their findings up for peer review...but they must meet common standards for scientific research. 

A vain and naive fantasy that refutes all historical experience.  Scientific consensus arrived at the conclusion that the sun went round the earth.  Scientific consensus kept itself that way for centuries, despite all the evidence to the contrary. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

The real only problem here is that probable does not imply is.  Just because the experts are probably right, does not mean that they are in this instance. 

Of course, and I also did not say that "experts probably right = experts certainly right", since this would mean scientific knowledge would never change in response to new evidence. Science has in fact always worked probabilistically, taking things to be true because they are likely, not definite. Researchers simply continue making observations and gathering evidence until all of their data begins to converge on a single explanation, or range of supported explanations, which is referred to as 'consensus'. Consensus can be challenged, and it has in the past, but only by using that same scientific method.

The methods are for those in the given field to establish, not those from other fields.  There is little point in calling something in a field you are not an expert in pseudoscience because that field establishes the appropriate methods for itself.

Your error is assuming there is no overlap between fields of study, and thus, everyone is free to set their own standards and make claims free from critical evaluation (that is very close to a self-sealing argument.) For instance, biology and chemistry are both heavily involved in medicine. Thus, medical claims will typically invoke some aspect of biology and chemistry knowledge. If those claims contradict established knowledge in the field, they are liable to being summarily dismissed (unless they can be properly supported), and fields of study that repeatedly make medical or other scientific claims while failing to adhere to consensus knowledge (or appropriate scientific standards) will be labelled 'pseudoscience'.

I guess medics would be qualified to disregard homeopathy, but there could never be a consensus on that matter because the homeopaths would have to part of that consensus as they are also medics, if wrong ones.  This often works out well (it certainly does for homeopathy) as some fields are based upon clearly wrong premises, but it works regardless of truth or falsity of the ideas you are targeting for the 'treatment'.

Homeopaths don't even make up the majority of medics, so this point is irrelevant - even if they were part of that discussion, they would be outnumbered, and even if they weren't, their claims would be demonstrated as false and therefore consensus would go against them. This is why they do not publish in reputable scientific journals with rigorous standards - instead, they publish in their own journals where they are free to present the data as they please. This is the consensus view.

Homeopathy does not 'work' in any meaningful sense. It does not produce the results it purports to do, and, as a replacement for conventional medicine, does not even begin to offer itself as a viable alternative.

You are forgetting that there is a difference between objectively being something and being subjectively recognized as something.  What matters here is not that my consensus experts are actually any good at science, but that people believe them to be.  Once I establish (by whatever means) that all opposing ideas are forms of pseudoscience and their practices invalid, I can therefore declare a consensus exists because those disagreeing with me are no longer scientists.  

Simply declaring X to be pseudoscience is not enough. X is considered pseudoscientific if repeated scientific trials fail to produce positive results (e.g. homeopathy), or if the theory itself is broken (e.g. astrology). If those outside of the consensus view wish to contest it, they must take part in the same scientific process that other researchers do.

Of course, consensus is only meaningful if the research underpinning the consensus data is good. In the case of pseudoscience, it isn't, so even if homeopaths got together and said 'conventional medicine is false, only homeopathy can treat patients', yes, they could 'declare' a consensus of their own. It would be laughed at, because it carries no weight outside of their own imaginations.

You are giving me an idealized scientist and an idealized science.  Actual people with heterodox views know through bitter experience the falsity of your claims, it does not matter how right they they they are and how strong the evidence they think they have for their conclusion; the existing consensus right or wrong has a quite terrible power to keep itself there. 

There are many historical examples of this happening; for instance, geocentrism, scientific racism, tobacco-disease-link denial, etc. Unfortunately science, being a human endeavour, is prone to error. Also, outside forces (politicisation of science) can exert undue pressure on scientific research. That being said, since scientific disciplines are self-correcting, they eventually evolve in response emerging evidence. Pseudoscience on the other hand, never actually does this, so even if they believed their conclusions were true, for them this is the only option, as they would never accept data that contradicted their assumptions (hence they set 'their own' standards of evidence, which will of course, always confirm their hypotheses).

Not all consensuses are false, and not all heterodox views are worth considering, as I am sure you are aware.

That is because if you disagree with the consensus view, you undermine your reputation and therefore you are no longer considered an expert.  

Not necessarily. There may be a range of interpretations that the data allows. What matters is the method used to reach those interpretations. 

Methods produce the results the methods produce (right or wrong), so if a conclusion following from a method proves you wrong, you declare invalid the methods that lead to the undesirable conclusion and your errors are now irrefutable. 

This is exactly how pseudoscience works, and how these people are able to sit in abject denial over the falsity of their claims.

As evidence is subjective, if I come up with evidence that proves me wrong; I can simply refuse to recognize it's validity. 

Evidence is not wholly subjective. There are degrees of subjectivity, obviously. And refusal to recognise its validity changes nothing, naturalistically speaking, the person doing so would just be willfully ignorant.

A vain and naive fantasy that refutes all historical experience.  Scientific consensus arrived at the conclusion that the sun went round the earth.  Scientific consensus kept itself that way for centuries, despite all the evidence to the contrary. 

Actually, yes, this is how consensus works. The evidence base may be wrong or misinterpreted, but that is how researchers come to their conclusions. Like I have same many times, consensus can be overturned, but one cannot bank on every contrarian scientist who has "other ideas" about their field to be the next Galileo, as all this does is give credence to 'scamademics' who seek to undermine public trust in science.

I'm not sure whether you're a pyrrhonist, a postmodern ultraskeptic, a relativist, a combination of those things, or anything else. 
 

 

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Your error is assuming there is no overlap between fields of study, and thus, everyone is free to set their own standards and make claims free from critical evaluation (that is very close to a self-sealing argument.) For instance, biology and chemistry are both heavily involved in medicine. Thus, medical claims will typically invoke some aspect of biology and chemistry knowledge. If those claims contradict established knowledge in the field, they are liable to being summarily dismissed (unless they can be properly supported), and fields of study that repeatedly make medical or other scientific claims while failing to adhere to consensus knowledge (or appropriate scientific standards) will be labelled 'pseudoscience'.

My point was that the 'blade cuts both ways' or 'you cannot have your cake and eat it too'.  In order for medics to have a valid consensus inveigh against homeopathy, it has to fall within the field of medicine.  Then we have to explain why homeopath experts aren't then also experts in medicine without this being begging the question.

There is no scientific expert consensus against homeopathy, there is a scientific conflict between experts in the same field.  Nothing about there being such a conflict implies that both sides are right, but there is certainly no consensus here. 

Homeopaths don't even make up the majority of medics, so this point is irrelevant - even if they were part of that discussion, they would be outnumbered, and even if they weren't, their claims would be demonstrated as false and therefore consensus would go against them. This is why they do not publish in reputable scientific journals with rigorous standards - instead, they publish in their own journals where they are free to present the data as they please. This is the consensus view.

Homeopathy does not 'work' in any meaningful sense. It does not produce the results it purports to do, and, as a replacement for conventional medicine, does not even begin to offer itself as a viable alternative.

Actually homeopathy does work somewhat, it just does not work for the reasons that homeopaths would think it does.  It 'works' because of the placebo effect, which is in effect means homeopathy works (slightly) but isn't true. 

Begging the questionpretty much sums up your first paragraph.  The answer assumes that the reader accepts that homeopathy is genuinely pseudoscience to begin with.  That would be correct in my case, however we were talking about a general situation not specifically that topic.  

The same outcome (having separate publications) could come about for the reasons you describe or it could come about because of purges and banishment.  Some groups could chose banishment in order to not be further proven wrong while other groups could be simply cast out.  Though I suppose it is quite possible to be both cast out and wrong; merely being persecuted is not a valid argument. 

Like Intelligent Design for instance.  They were clearly cast out by force of actual law rather than choosing any kind of separation voluntarily because they were so afraid of Darwin's Theories.  They fought  against attempts to cast them into their own little corner (and lost).  Thus I find the claim that pseudoscientists, alleged or otherwise voluntarily choose exile unlikely. 

Homeopaths don't even make up the majority of medics, so this point is irrelevant - even if they were part of that discussion, they would be outnumbered, and even if they weren't, their claims would be demonstrated as false and therefore consensus would go against them. This is why they do not publish in reputable scientific journals with rigorous standards - instead, they publish in their own journals where they are free to present the data as they please. This is the consensus view.

Homeopathy does not 'work' in any meaningful sense. It does not produce the results it purports to do, and, as a replacement for conventional medicine, does not even begin to offer itself as a viable alternative.

Majority of Medics?  We aren't talking about majority, we are talking about consensus.  Consensus means that everyone in the field agrees, or near enough; it does not simply mean that the majority does.

Going by majority isn't going to work because not all experts are equal.  How many votes does each expert get based upon how expert they personally are.  Otherwise I can just rig the vote by churning out minimally trained experts that qualify as cheerleaders but little else.

Simply declaring X to be pseudoscience is not enough. X is considered pseudoscientific if repeated scientific trials fail to produce positive results (e.g. homeopathy), or if the theory itself is broken (e.g. astrology). If those outside of the consensus view wish to contest it, they must take part in the same scientific process that other researchers do.

Of course, consensus is only meaningful if the research underpinning the consensus data is good. In the case of pseudoscience, it isn't, so even if homeopaths got together and said 'conventional medicine is false, only homeopathy can treat patients', yes, they could 'declare' a consensus of their own. It would be laughed at, because it carries no weight outside of their own imaginations.

Nope, folks are considered pseudo-scientists in order to engage in the expert-purging process I mentioned, the truth of their actual status is entirely optional in this process.   As you already admitted before, actual pseudo-scientists benefit from being considered such because it releases them from having to follow general scientific standards.  The sole reason then to declare things pseudoscience is so expert consensus can hold together, we declare all experts that we disagree with us are pseudo-scientists so there is now an expert consensus behind our ideas (because we need such expert consensus to exist).

So on the basis of expert consensus how is Astrology a Pseudoscience?  Astrology bears no similarity to any other field of study so there is no transferable expertise.  It seems therefore that the only people who can actually declare Astrology unscientific are the astrologers themselves.  Your 'the theory is broken' claim is a nice exercise in circular reasoning, Astrology is apparently pseudoscience because it contradicts scientific theories of the world that were concocted without including it and so of course it will contradict those theories. 

 
There are many historical examples of this happening; for instance, geocentrism, scientific racism, tobacco-disease-link denial, etc. Unfortunately science, being a human endeavour, is prone to error. Also, outside forces (politicisation of science) can exert undue pressure on scientific research. That being said, since scientific disciplines are self-correcting, they eventually evolve in response emerging evidence. Pseudoscience on the other hand, never actually does this, so even if they believed their conclusions were true, for them this is the only option, as they would never accept data that contradicted their assumptions (hence they set 'their own' standards of evidence, which will of course, always confirm their hypotheses).

Not all consensuses are false, and not all heterodox views are worth considering, as I am sure you are aware.

And in every case the belief in scientific consensus got in the way of progress, a science strongly based upon expert consensus is *not* self-correcting.  Believing in scientific consensus creates a motive to simply establish consensus through purges and this directly interferes with the self-correcting process you describe. 

There is also no such thing as politicization of science, science is always political.  Even if you aren't interested in the politics as a scientist, the politics is interested in you as your research may end up supporting or opposing their policies regardless of your own personal neutrality.

 
Not necessarily. There may be a range of interpretations that the data allows. What matters is the method used to reach those interpretations. 

No.  Methods do not produce interpretations, they produce data/evidence.  Data/evidence is then interpreted, often in rather dubious fashion and often by non-scientists for political ends.  If reinterpretation is not enough, you simply rubbish the methods that reliably produce the data you dislike and promote methods that reliably produce the data you like.

 
Evidence is not wholly subjective. There are degrees of subjectivity, obviously. And refusal to recognise its validity changes nothing, naturalistically speaking, the person doing so would just be willfully ignorant.

No evidence is 100% subjective.  The word itself means 'that which is evident', which means that it is subjective and not objective.  That all your evidence can just all be an illusion which is of course Science's least favorite fact.  Their second least favorite fact would be 'just because it works does not mean it is true'. 

The desire to believe there is some objectivity to evidence is why people clung so hard to the notion that the Sun went round the Earth.  What made Galileo (and those before him) unpopular was that they provided evidence to prove the evidence was an illusion.

Horrible little man.  Before he came along the world was so simple and innocent, the sky was just as appeared to be (ie the evidence was objective).  When the sun rose every morning that was objectively what the sun was doing.   

I'm not sure whether you're a pyrrhonist, a postmodern ultraskeptic, a relativist, a combination of those things, or anything else. 

If I told you what I was you would probably spontaneously combust. 

account no longer exists writes:

Recall the CalTech Prof. who lead the Scientific Consensus that Pluto is not a (Bleeping) planet?

Welcome to the New Age of the democracy of science.