Consensis is Not Science - Science is Not Consensus

[ChemEngineer]

Consensus is not Science; Science is Not Consensus​

The Semmelweis reflex or “Semmelweis effect” is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.[1]

The term derives from the name of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician who discovered in 1847 that childbed fever mortality rates fell ten-fold when doctors disinfected their hands with a chlorine solution before moving from one patient to another, or, most particularly, after an autopsy. (At one of the two maternity wards at the university hospital where Semmelweis worked, physicians performed autopsies on every deceased patient.) Semmelweis’s procedure saved many lives by stopping the ongoing contamination of patients (mostly pregnant women) with what he termed “cadaverous particles”, twenty years before germ theory was discovered.[2] Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, his fellow doctors rejected his hand-washing suggestions, often for non-medical reasons. For instance, some doctors refused to believe that a gentleman’s hands could transmit disease.[3]



In the preface to the fiftieth anniversary edition of his book The Myth of Mental Illness, Thomas Szasz says that Semmelweis’s biography impressed upon him at a young age, a “deep sense of the invincible social power of false truths.”[5]

_______________​

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die…..” – Max Planck (1858 – 1947)

_____________
​

In 1983, Barry Marshall and John Warren presented a paper to the Australian Gastroenterological Society claiming that stomach ulcers are caused by infection of Helicobacter pylori. They never finished their presentation because they were laughed off the stage. Twenty-two years later, they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005 for their discovery.


Doctors and nurses, experts in their fields, kill 250,000 to 400,000 patients a year through medical malpractice.(www.HopkinsMedicine.org)


Here is a thought experiment with an obvious conclusion. In 1895, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society, the oldest science organization in the world, declared: “Heavier-than- air human flight is impossible.”


Imagine that two years later, a distinguished member of the Royal Society introduced Lloyd and Wilbur Wright to a meeting of The Society, and they announced, “We have been experimenting with our heavier-than-air invention and we believe we can fly it.”


What would the Royal Society members have said? The same thing that doubters have always said because the Wright Brothers did not have the necessary pedigrees as did Lord Kelvin. “Throw them out! Out of here!”


“Consensus” continues to be the siren song for Darwinian evolution, climate change, and most recently, the Covid-19 Cult, which has had severely destructive repercussions throughout schools and universities nationwide. The jabs, while failing to prevent Covid-19, have caused widespread myocarditis, and blood clots, killing thousands.

 

[sealybobo]

Consensus is not Science; Science is Not Consensus​

The Semmelweis reflex or “Semmelweis effect” is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.[1]

The term derives from the name of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician who discovered in 1847 that childbed fever mortality rates fell ten-fold when doctors disinfected their hands with a chlorine solution before moving from one patient to another, or, most particularly, after an autopsy. (At one of the two maternity wards at the university hospital where Semmelweis worked, physicians performed autopsies on every deceased patient.) Semmelweis’s procedure saved many lives by stopping the ongoing contamination of patients (mostly pregnant women) with what he termed “cadaverous particles”, twenty years before germ theory was discovered.[2] Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, his fellow doctors rejected his hand-washing suggestions, often for non-medical reasons. For instance, some doctors refused to believe that a gentleman’s hands could transmit disease.[3]



In the preface to the fiftieth anniversary edition of his book The Myth of Mental Illness, Thomas Szasz says that Semmelweis’s biography impressed upon him at a young age, a “deep sense of the invincible social power of false truths.”[5]

_______________​

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die…..” – Max Planck (1858 – 1947)

_____________

​

In 1983, Barry Marshall and John Warren presented a paper to the Australian Gastroenterological Society claiming that stomach ulcers are caused by infection of Helicobacter pylori. They never finished their presentation because they were laughed off the stage. Twenty-two years later, they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005 for their discovery.





Doctors and nurses, experts in their fields, kill 250,000 to 400,000 patients a year through medical malpractice.(www.HopkinsMedicine.org)

​

Here is a thought experiment with an obvious conclusion. In 1895, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society, the oldest science organization in the world, declared: “Heavier-than- air human flight is impossible.”


Imagine that two years later, a distinguished member of the Royal Society introduced Lloyd and Wilbur Wright to a meeting of The Society, and they announced, “We have been experimenting with our heavier-than-air invention and we believe we can fly it.”


What would the Royal Society members have said? The same thing that doubters have always said because the Wright Brothers did not have the necessary pedigrees as did Lord Kelvin. “Throw them out! Out of here!”


“Consensus” continues to be the siren song for Darwinian evolution, climate change, and most recently, the Covid-19 Cult, which has had severely destructive repercussions throughout schools and universities nationwide. The jabs, while failing to prevent Covid-19, have caused widespread myocarditis, and blood clots, killing thousands.

But if something has been peer reviewed and the scientific community comes to a consensus, what about that?

Do you know gravity might not be entirely accurate? Or Einstein's theory? Did you know that? The Big bang may not be what you think. And black holes may not be what we think. But both were figured out with science. And consensus says they are the reality that we know of right now.

What are you challenging?

 

[Votto]

But if something has been peer reviewed and the scientific community comes to a consensus, what about that?

Do you know gravity might not be entirely accurate? Or Einstein's theory? Did you know that? The Big bang may not be what you think. And black holes may not be what we think. But both were figured out with science. And consensus says they are the reality that we know of right now.

What are you challenging?

Pretty much every scientific breakthrough has been met with derision.

Case in point is a woman who wrote a paper about what makes up a star? She had the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and helium, but that was a view no one else had. She turned in a paper to state her thesis and she flunked. She then later recanted and apologized for being so stupid, even though she was later proven right. It is sad I can't ever remember her name as not many do either. She was a woman in a man's world after all, another reason she was dismissed.

This is the power of consensus and group think and politics within science.

Now add to this a topic that has political implications and trillions of dollars attached, like climate Change. There is a lot of money riding on Climate Theory, which makes them defend it to the death!!!

 

[DGS49]

The phenomenon has been well-documented that funding for scientific studies is most abundant when you propose to do research that will reinforce popular perceptions of the subject in question.

Imagine a "scientist" who wishes to study sunspot activity in order to confirm that "global warming" has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. He would never find a sponsor for that study.

Imagine a scientist who wishes to debunk the "Theory of Evolution" by documenting and confirming its various shortcomings (e.g., lack of evidence transitional species), to prove that it simply doesn't hold water. No funding for you , laddie.

Imagine a scientist who wishes to totally debunk the existence of "trans" humans - proving that it is nothing other than a personal delusion.

 

[sealybobo]

Pretty much every scientific breakthrough has been met with derision.

Case in point is a woman who wrote a paper about what makes up a star? She had the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and helium, but that was a view no one else had. She turned in a paper to state her thesis and she flunked. She then later recanted and apologized for being so stupid, even though she was later proven right. It is sad I can't ever remember her name as not many do either. She was a woman in a man's world after all, another reason she was dismissed.

This is the power of consensus and group think and politics within science.

Now add to this a topic that has political implications and trillions of dollars attached, like climate Change. There is a lot of money riding on Climate Theory, which makes them defend it to the death!!!

I get what you are saying but I disagree with your conclusion on man made climate change. We are destroying this planet.

The planet will be fine but will we?

And ultimately, maybe GW will only kill half or 75% of us. I think that would be wonderful. That would solve man made climate change and humans will continue to exist. Right now we have almost 8 billion people on the planet. Maybe man made climate change will cut that number in half. 4 billion. Then we won't be cutting down too many trees and using up all the other planets natural resources. And filling our oceans with plastic.

I'm serious. I love it that a lot of people today are having fewer kids or none at all. That's good for all of us including mother nature and the other animals we share this planet with.

 

[Votto]

I get what you are saying but I disagree with your conclusion on man made climate change. We are destroying this planet.

The planet will be fine but will we?

And ultimately, maybe GW will only kill half or 75% of us. I think that would be wonderful. That would solve man made climate change and humans will continue to exist. Right now we have almost 8 billion people on the planet. Maybe man made climate change will cut that number in half. 4 billion. Then we won't be cutting down too many trees and using up all the other planets natural resources. And filling our oceans with plastic.

I'm serious. I love it that a lot of people today are having fewer kids or none at all. That's good for all of us including mother nature and the other animals we share this planet with.

Did you know that every planet in the solar system has had a temperature increase?

Think hard for me, what commonality do all the planets share that would cause that?

The life of a star is to get bigger, and bigger and bigger and bigger, until the sun will eventually engulf the earth, all of it. Then when it becomes too big, it will collapse on itself and become a black hole sucking in and destroying anything close to it.

Oddly, the sun and the US Federal government are kindred brothers in this regard.

 

[Weatherman2020]

But if something has been peer reviewed and the scientific community comes to a consensus, what about that?

Do you know gravity might not be entirely accurate? Or Einstein's theory? Did you know that? The Big bang may not be what you think. And black holes may not be what we think. But both were figured out with science. And consensus says they are the reality that we know of right now.

What are you challenging?

Will you put $1 in my PayPal for every peer reviewed study that’s been debunked?

Affirmative citation bias in scientific myth debunking: A three-in-one case study

Several uncorroborated, false, or misinterpreted conceptions have for years been widely distributed in academic publications, thus becoming scientific myths. How can such misconceptions persist and proliferate within the inimical environment of academic criticism? Examining 613 articles we...

journals.plos.org

Top science publisher withdraws flawed climate study

Top science publisher Springer Nature said it has withdrawn a study that presented misleading conclusions on climate change impacts after an investigation prompted by an Agence France-Presse (AFP) inquiry.

phys.org

Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment - PubMed

The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is one of psychology's most famous studies. It has been criticized on many grounds, and yet a majority of textbook authors have ignored these criticisms in their discussions of the SPE, thereby misleading both students and the general public about the study's...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, says Ioannidis, with ensuing confusion and disappointment.

journals.plos.org

DEBUNKED: Europe’s claimed ‘worst drought in 500 years’ – Peer-reviewed studies, data & IPCC reveal ‘drought has not increased’ & ‘cannot be attributed to human-caused climate change’

Dr. Pielke Jr.: Let’s take a look at what the peer-reviewed literature and the IPCC actually say about drought trends in this region and their possible attribution to climate change. One recent stu…

www.climatedepot.com

 

[Weatherman2020]

I get what you are saying but I disagree with your conclusion on man made climate change. We are destroying this planet.

The planet will be fine but will we?

And ultimately, maybe GW will only kill half or 75% of us. I think that would be wonderful. That would solve man made climate change and humans will continue to exist. Right now we have almost 8 billion people on the planet. Maybe man made climate change will cut that number in half. 4 billion. Then we won't be cutting down too many trees and using up all the other planets natural resources. And filling our oceans with plastic.

I'm serious. I love it that a lot of people today are having fewer kids or none at all. That's good for all of us including mother nature and the other animals we share this planet with.

I get what you are saying but I disagree with your conclusion on man made climate change. We are destroying this planet.

Mars is Melting | Science Mission Directorate

It's not every day you get to watch a planetary ice cap melt, but this month you can. All you need are clear skies, a backyard telescope, and a sky map leading to Mars.

science.nasa.gov

Let me guess. It’s because I don’t drive an EV.

 

[Votto]

The same people who preach climate change all fly around in jets, even though one jet trip expends as much carbon as driving an SUV for a whole year. And yes, they also drive SUV's that are not electric. Then they retire to one of their many mansions around the world they heat and cool every day.

But at the end of the day, only nuclear power is both carbon free and will meet the demands of the world today. Solar and wind power is like pissing in the ocean because they are so inefficient. Sadly, all the Climate alarmists are not advocates of this either. No, they just tell us all to use less as energy prices go through the roof!!



This leads me to two possible scenarios. The people in charge are the most stupid and ignorant and hypocritical in the history of the universe, or they don't believe it. Either way, we need to get rid of all of them yesterday!

 

[ChemEngineer]

Some people don't want to learn. Most of them voted for President Potatohead.

 

[sealybobo]

Did you know that every planet in the solar system has had a temperature increase?

Think hard for me, what commonality do all the planets share that would cause that?

View attachment 833947

The life of a star is to get bigger, and bigger and bigger and bigger, until the sun will eventually engulf the earth, all of it. Then when it becomes too big, it will collapse on itself and become a black hole sucking in and destroying anything close to it.

Oddly, the sun and the US Federal government are kindred brothers in this regard.

All true but that's going to take millions or billions of years. The sudden increase recently is man made climate change scientists are connecting all the polluting China, Mexico, USA, Russia, Europe, India etc are putting up in the air.

I'm sure scientists have taken your point into consideration. Despite that, they see evidence man is causing climate change with all our gas, oil and coal.

Even if I'm wrong. This pollution is causing cancer. Don't you want to live longer/better? Go Green.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Mars is Melting | Science Mission Directorate

It's not every day you get to watch a planetary ice cap melt, but this month you can. All you need are clear skies, a backyard telescope, and a sky map leading to Mars.

science.nasa.gov

Let me guess. It’s because I don’t drive an EV.

You bad person! LOL
Virtue signaling is for sheep.

 

[Weatherman2020]

All true but that's going to take millions or billions of years. The sudden increase recently is man made climate change scientists are connecting all the polluting China, Mexico, USA, Russia, Europe, India etc are putting up in the air.

I'm sure scientists have taken your point into consideration. Despite that, they see evidence man is causing climate change with all our gas, oil and coal.

Even if I'm wrong. This pollution is causing cancer. Don't you want to live longer/better? Go Green.

10,000 years ago the Great Lakes did not exist.
What caused that cataclysmic environmental catastrophe?

 

[sealybobo]

10,000 years ago the Great Lakes did not exist.
What caused that cataclysmic environmental catastrophe?
View attachment 833956

During the last ice age, the mile-thick Laurentide ice sheet covered most of Canada and the northern contiguous United States. The massive weight and movement of this glacier gouged out the earth to form the lake basins. About 20,000 years ago, the climate warmed and the ice sheet retreated. Water from the melting glacier filled the basinsoffsite link, forming the Great Lakes. Approximately 3,000 years ago, the Great Lakes reached their present shapes and sizes. I believe a glacier rollled on threw creating the Great Lakes

What took 3000 years today may only take 100 thanks to us.

Human activities are at the root of this phenomenon. Specifically, since the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have raised temperatures, even higher in the poles, and as a result, glaciers are rapidly melting, calving off into the sea and retreating on land.

 

[Votto]

All true but that's going to take millions or billions of years. The sudden increase recently is man made climate change scientists are connecting all the polluting China, Mexico, USA, Russia, Europe, India etc are putting up in the air.

I'm sure scientists have taken your point into consideration. Despite that, they see evidence man is causing climate change with all our gas, oil and coal.

Even if I'm wrong. This pollution is causing cancer. Don't you want to live longer/better? Go Green.

I am all for nuclear power, something that would eventually lead to much cheaper energy and free of the Middle East. Again, it is the only current viable technology to replace fossil fuels that would meet the energy demands of society.

However, all they talk about are carbon taxes with no plans for this.

Why?

It is either nuclear, or punish society as you pummel them into the ground financially and/or starve them to death

Again, all because you have a theory that has not been proven.

Are you even aware that the UN declared that about a billion people will die of starvation this year? Why then are farmers all around the world being prohibited from growing food like they want because fertilizer emits carbon?

Why Dutch farmers are protesting over emissions cuts

Farmers say proposals to cut livestock and reduce intensive farming unfairly target their industry.

www.bbc.com

Is letting those people starve to death worth it to you? Is this not criminal?

 

[sealybobo]

I am all for nuclear power, something that would eventually lead to much cheaper energy and free of the Middle East. Again, it is the only current viable technology to replace fossil fuels that would meet the energy demands of society.

However, all they talk about are carbon taxes with no plans for this.

Why?

It is either nuclear, or punish society as you pummel them into the ground financially and/or starve them to death

Again, all because you have a theory that has not been proven.

Are you even aware that the UN declared that about a billion people will die of starvation this year? Why then are farmers all around the world being prohibited from growing food like they want because fertilizer emits carbon?

Why Dutch farmers are protesting over emissions cuts

Farmers say proposals to cut livestock and reduce intensive farming unfairly target their industry.

www.bbc.com

Is letting those people starve to death worth it to you? Is this not criminal?

At least you understand the reason the rich/corporations deny mmcc is because it will affect their profits.

I like nuclean. My dad asked me what else they will think of. One day our kids will look back and say "can you believe at one time we relied on coal and oil?

One day we will rely on the sun for energy. Not burn up our natural resources.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Pretty much every scientific breakthrough has been met with derision.

I'd say it's your statement that should be met with derision. Why? Because you're speaking in generalities, about something very specific. And you'd be seriously hard pressed to offer prove to back up your claim. Are you speaking of derision from the people, or derision from scientists, or derision from a particular segment of any scientific community? It's like you're speaking and thinking deeply in bumper sticker slogan-ese or meme-speak. That's what it sounds and looks like.

What you have done here is take a few well known cases of scientific breakthroughs that challenged the accepted science of a particular time, and conflated them to all breakthroughs. Such nonsense.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Consensus is not Science; Science is Not Consensus​

The Semmelweis reflex or “Semmelweis effect” is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.[1]

The term derives from the name of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician who discovered in 1847 that childbed fever mortality rates fell ten-fold when doctors disinfected their hands with a chlorine solution before moving from one patient to another, or, most particularly, after an autopsy. (At one of the two maternity wards at the university hospital where Semmelweis worked, physicians performed autopsies on every deceased patient.) Semmelweis’s procedure saved many lives by stopping the ongoing contamination of patients (mostly pregnant women) with what he termed “cadaverous particles”, twenty years before germ theory was discovered.[2] Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, his fellow doctors rejected his hand-washing suggestions, often for non-medical reasons. For instance, some doctors refused to believe that a gentleman’s hands could transmit disease.[3]



In the preface to the fiftieth anniversary edition of his book The Myth of Mental Illness, Thomas Szasz says that Semmelweis’s biography impressed upon him at a young age, a “deep sense of the invincible social power of false truths.”[5]

_______________​

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die…..” – Max Planck (1858 – 1947)

_____________
​

In 1983, Barry Marshall and John Warren presented a paper to the Australian Gastroenterological Society claiming that stomach ulcers are caused by infection of Helicobacter pylori. They never finished their presentation because they were laughed off the stage. Twenty-two years later, they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005 for their discovery.


Doctors and nurses, experts in their fields, kill 250,000 to 400,000 patients a year through medical malpractice.(www.HopkinsMedicine.org)


Here is a thought experiment with an obvious conclusion. In 1895, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society, the oldest science organization in the world, declared: “Heavier-than- air human flight is impossible.”


Imagine that two years later, a distinguished member of the Royal Society introduced Lloyd and Wilbur Wright to a meeting of The Society, and they announced, “We have been experimenting with our heavier-than-air invention and we believe we can fly it.”


What would the Royal Society members have said? The same thing that doubters have always said because the Wright Brothers did not have the necessary pedigrees as did Lord Kelvin. “Throw them out! Out of here!”


“Consensus” continues to be the siren song for Darwinian evolution, climate change, and most recently, the Covid-19 Cult, which has had severely destructive repercussions throughout schools and universities nationwide. The jabs, while failing to prevent Covid-19, have caused widespread myocarditis, and blood clots, killing thousands.

Not sure exactly WHAT you are getting at here. You seem all over the place.

Could YOU be more specific? You start off with "Consensus is not Science; Science is Not Consensus" Are supposed to be proving your premise?

 

[sealybobo]

I'd say it's your statement that should be met with derision. Why? Because you're speaking in generalities, about something very specific. And you'd be seriously hard pressed to offer prove to back up your claim. Are you speaking of derision from the people, or derision from scientists, or derision from a particular segment of any scientific community? It's like you're speaking and thinking deeply in bumper sticker slogan-ese or meme-speak. That's what it sounds and looks like.

What you have done here is take a few well known cases of scientific breakthroughs that challenged the accepted science of a particular time, and conflated them to all breakthroughs. Such nonsense.

Is the goal to not believe ANYTHING the scientific community says in order to deny global warming?

Similar to how we aren't supposed to believe ANYTHING we hear from the media when they expose Trump?

And don't believe ANYTHING the politicians say if it doesn't fit your narrative?

Seems like a tactic a party that lies a lot would use. Or cognitive dissonance.

 

[Mac-7]

Consensus is not Science; Science is Not Consensus​

The Semmelweis reflex or “Semmelweis effect” is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.[1]

The term derives from the name of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician who discovered in 1847 that childbed fever mortality rates fell ten-fold when doctors disinfected their hands with a chlorine solution before moving from one patient to another, or, most particularly, after an autopsy. (At one of the two maternity wards at the university hospital where Semmelweis worked, physicians performed autopsies on every deceased patient.) Semmelweis’s procedure saved many lives by stopping the ongoing contamination of patients (mostly pregnant women) with what he termed “cadaverous particles”, twenty years before germ theory was discovered.[2] Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, his fellow doctors rejected his hand-washing suggestions, often for non-medical reasons. For instance, some doctors refused to believe that a gentleman’s hands could transmit disease.[3]



In the preface to the fiftieth anniversary edition of his book The Myth of Mental Illness, Thomas Szasz says that Semmelweis’s biography impressed upon him at a young age, a “deep sense of the invincible social power of false truths.”[5]

_______________​

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die…..” – Max Planck (1858 – 1947)

_____________
​

In 1983, Barry Marshall and John Warren presented a paper to the Australian Gastroenterological Society claiming that stomach ulcers are caused by infection of Helicobacter pylori. They never finished their presentation because they were laughed off the stage. Twenty-two years later, they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005 for their discovery.


Doctors and nurses, experts in their fields, kill 250,000 to 400,000 patients a year through medical malpractice.(www.HopkinsMedicine.org)


Here is a thought experiment with an obvious conclusion. In 1895, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society, the oldest science organization in the world, declared: “Heavier-than- air human flight is impossible.”


Imagine that two years later, a distinguished member of the Royal Society introduced Lloyd and Wilbur Wright to a meeting of The Society, and they announced, “We have been experimenting with our heavier-than-air invention and we believe we can fly it.”


What would the Royal Society members have said? The same thing that doubters have always said because the Wright Brothers did not have the necessary pedigrees as did Lord Kelvin. “Throw them out! Out of here!”


“Consensus” continues to be the siren song for Darwinian evolution, climate change, and most recently, the Covid-19 Cult, which has had severely destructive repercussions throughout schools and universities nationwide. The jabs, while failing to prevent Covid-19, have caused widespread myocarditis, and blood clots, killing thousands.

The learned consensus used to be that the sun orbited around the earth

But science is not a show of hands exercise