| > Often something is presented as a scientific consensus > During COVID a lot of things were presented to the public as if it were 100% obvious and agreed with by every specialist Who is it that presents things to the public? Who are "they"? Who is "the media"? At least in the country I live in different journalists/writers/bloggers had very different opinions and they changed significantly over time. You could even watch the scientific process in real-time: New evidence comes in, people update their beliefs. > scientific consensus is by definition clear cut > maintain this illusion of universal agreement. > Policy was globally homogenous We can agree or disagree whether there are these groups that all act in unison, what I want to point out is that you need these homogenous groups for your argument to work. If different countries had come to similar conclusions independently, that would mean the conclusion are likely valid, no? If different journalists/experts/scientist from different countries/cultures/political backgrounds came to similar conclusions independently, that would mean the conclusion is likely valid, no? I'm making a guess here: I hypothesise that your discontent stems from the fact that you don't want other people to tell you what to do or not to do. In particular you disagree with the concept that society is a mechanism to distribute both wealth but also burden. Does that ring a bell? |
We got to watch the scientific process in real time, indeed. It consisted of new evidence coming in and nobody updating their beliefs.
> If different countries had come to similar conclusions independently, that would mean the conclusion are likely valid, no?
No. After all, that cuts both ways. Many hundreds of millions of people around the world who were fully independent of the scientific grant funding structure watched this process and came to very different conclusions. So that must be mean the conclusions are likely invalid, no?