[extropy-chat] Re: anomalies and science

[Robin Hanson]

On 12/27/2004, Damien Broderick responded to Hal Finney and Brett:
>>>Rejecting scientific consensus on the basis of personal investigation
>>>of the facts and evidence is likely to fail, paradoxical as it may seem.
>>>That's just how the world works.
>>
>>Yet all progress in science depends on some scientists being willing
>>to take the opposite view.
>
>Not the *opposite* view, necessarily, but often one at an odd angle ...
>My problem with Hal's formulation is that it seems to imply that a 
>`scientific consensus' is the same as a `consensus of recognized or 
>certificated scientists', which is often the case but fails when an 
>audacious or moldy hypothesis is rejected in a kneejerk fashion by many 
>who haven't bothered to do their due diligence. ...

Yes a social consensus that combines individual opinions should be on 
average be more accurate than the individual opinions.  But there are often 
several competing social consenses to choose from, such as academia, news 
media, official government agencies, and so on.  There are even several 
different ways to cash out a "scientific consensus."   This means we must 
ask which consensus is on average more accurate.  For all the strong claims 
often made, there is surprisingly little systematic data on this question.



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323