- Thread starter
- #41
One example with disclaimer that this is not intended to be another thread on climate change:In some situations consensus is demanded, so it is why people have gotten together, to form a consensus on something
"When a person is excluded or disciplined (not sure what this implies: 'or worse'), if he/she disagrees..." - I have been outside of a consensus, and in those times any exclusion was usually foreseen. Almost a choice. I'm not sure about anyone being 'disciplined'
my previous text:
Any scientist who questions the doctrine of AGW causing climate change and/or the concept that controlling human activity, behavior, choices, options will remedy that is automatically excluded from almost all scientific organizations, will not be allowed grant monies and, if publicly visible, will be painted as a right wing nut and climate denier by the media etc.
Many film stars have been removed from the "A list" or blacklisted when they expressed conservative or right wing views.
Conservative or right wing educators in most public schools and colleges or employees in certain occupations are made to feel unwelcome and uncomfortable to the point they leave if they are even hired in the first place.
All of which is no different from a kind of "McCarthyism" during a time those in power were looking for communists and excluding/firing all even possibly associated with communists or communism. That was also a very destructive form of group think.
And that is what I mean by being excluded or disciplined. And yes, in such circumstances consensus is demanded which is highly destructive.
Science becomes something other than science when questions or challenges to concepts are not allowed.
Education becomes indoctrination when different points of view are not allowed to be included or even expressed.
Corporations or other organizations become ingrown and much less likely to make good choices when only one point of view is allowed in order to be acceptable.
When consensus is demanded, it should mean that in order for something to happen or move forward, everyone must arrive a point of agreement such as say a jury. It does not mean the participants cannot engage in lively debate, expression of many points of view and preferences, etc. It does not require a specific outcome.
Whenever a specific outcome is required you don't have consensus. You have dictatorship or totalitarianism.
Last edited: