This is the single most awesomely clueless example of someone who didn’t actually read beyond the title of the post or, if he did read it, totally missed the point of the post. 1/
Here’s a hint. Nowhere did I propose the idea of an “unquestionable scientific consensus.” I merely said that if you question a scientific consensus without strong evidence or rationale, scientists are under no obligation to take your challenge seriously. 2/
Actually, the post was not about any specific scientific consensus, but rather about a common refrain from people like Michael Crichton, “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.” This is BS. 3/
After all, what is a scientific theory but, to put it most simply, a scientific consensus about the best current explanation for a natural phenomenon? Here’s the original post, for reference. 4/ sciencebasedmedicine.org/hostility-towa…
Of course, questioning the consensus is often necessary in science. Indeed, it is critical to scientific advancement. 5/
However, there is a huge difference between questioning a current consensus and producing the data and experimental evidence to show that there is a real scientific reason to question it, and JAQing off about science. 6/
Raising spurious or already answered questions about a scientific finding or theory one doesn’t like, belongs to the province of cranks and denialists, like creationists, antivaxxers, quacks, and climate science denialists. 7/
When you have an actual scientifically valid reason, based on science, evidence, experimentation, and observational evidence, to think that the current scientific consensus about something is in error, then it is appropriate to challenge the scientific consensus. 8/
When you don’t, then it isn’t. Guess which category antivaxxers, creationists, quacks, and climate science deniers fall into? 9/
Basically, you have the “right” to “challenge” any scientific consensus you like, but scientists are under no obligation to take you seriously if you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. 10/ sciencebasedmedicine.org/on-the-right-t…
Think of it this way: What’s more likely to be closer to the truth, a scientific consensus based on mountains of evidence, or the rantings of an antivaxxer, creationist, quack, or climate science denier? 11/
I’ll conclude with a quote from Michael Shermer: “For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose ‘truths’ never pass scientific muster with other scientists.” 12/12
