I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had
In the discussion surrounding the concept of consensus in science, Michael Crichton expresses strong skepticism towards what is termed "consensus science." He believes that this trend is dangerous and should be halted immediately. Crichton highlights that the assertion of a scientific consensus often serves as a tactic to bypass critical debate. By claiming that an issue is already resolved based on the majority's opinion, it discourages further inquiry and questioning.
Crichton warns that when people invoke the idea of consensus among scientists, it can be a signal of manipulative or deceptive practices. He implies that such claims should be approached with caution, as they may mask ulterior motives, especially in contexts where financial interests are involved. His perspective advocates for a more open and rigorous examination of scientific issues rather than accepting conclusions based on majority opinion alone.
