Here’s a podcast on why consensus is meaningless in a field like science.
But honestly, I don’t know why John West bothers to explain it. It shouldn’t need explaining.
Consensus is meaningless in any field where being right means hitting a target.
You can cure cancer? Who cares whether people who can’t cure cancer disagree with you?
You can put a man on Mars? Who cares about the people who said it couldn’t be done?
Would you rather be part of the 95% consensus that didn’t hit the bull’s eye, or the 5% non-consensus that did?
[ … ]
Yuh, I thought you’d say that ….
Also, just up at the Post-Darwinist
Down the bayou: Louisiana passes “it’s okay to doubt” act
Talk at University of Toronto suggests an organism can change species during its lifetime. No riots ensue.
Darwinism and popular culture: Celebrating Darwin in the prison system
Does Dawkins still have any connection to science?
Evolutionary psychology: Didn’t you know that this stuff is supposed to “rile” you?