Scientific consensus is not a fruitful concept
But the concept of consensus is poorly suited to science, where conclusions must always remain provisional and revisable in the light of new evidence.
The concept of 'convergence' better describes the nature of the scientific enterprise. Convergence means we can begin to have confidence that science is accurately/truly describing a phenomenon when the evidence from many and diverse approaches all point to the same explanation. The relative merits of the concepts of consensus and convergence were discussed recently in a recent editorial in
Science
, and elaborated by Chuck Dinerstein in The
American Council for Science and Health
.
The value of the convergence concept is illustrated by the history of the MMR
vaccine
and the claims that this vaccine causes autism. There is a huge amount of evidence from very many lines of investigation that MMR vaccines do not cause autism – in other words, there is extremely strong scientific convergence pointing to this conclusion.
READ MORE
Nevertheless, US secretary for health
Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy jnr
does not accept this conclusion, and has asked the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct a new study to demonstrate cases where MMR vaccination does cause autism.
[
The global fight for science in the face of Trump's attacks
Opens in new window
]
Given the strength of evidence to date, it seems highly improbable the CDC will demonstrate any link between MMR and autism. Even if it does produce some evidence, the fact remains that innumerable past studies have found no link.
A single contrary indication would not destroy the existing convergence of evidence, which will remain even if a single or a few exceptions come to light. If exceptions do emerge, the onus will be on proponents of the MMR/autism link to explain why scientific convergence so overwhelmingly indicates the opposite conclusion.
And, of course, those who now argue for a link between MMR and autism, in the absence of evidence to date to support their claim, would seize on a single apparent demonstration of a link in some cases as a demonstration that 'scientific consensus' is broken, and they would be emboldened to greatly intensify their campaign against vaccination.
In other words, as far as the evidence goes they would have the tail wag the dog and would certainly sow great confusion and persuade many parents not to vaccinate their children, with disastrous consequences.
Creative people who are not completely shackled by existing paradigms are very important when science consistently struggles over a long period to make further progress in explaining a situation
On the other hand, the convergence concept would not lend itself to any such easy manipulation. A single contrary demonstration, albeit interesting and demanding further investigation, would remain a single demonstration to confront innumerable published demonstrations to the contrary.
Another weakness of the consensus concept is that it can be used to bully scientists who dissent from majority opinion. This can be done by refusing monetary support to fund the researches of scientists who question the consensus position. I would imagine that the minority of climate scientists currently seeking support to study potential natural explanations of global warming unrelated to greenhouse gas emissions are finding it very hard to win funding from grant-awarding bodies dominated by scientists hostile to any questioning of the conventional 'consensus'.
[
Political correctness now a bullying tactic aimed at stifling legitimate debate
Opens in new window
]
Creative people who are not completely shackled by existing paradigms are very important when science consistently struggles over a long period to make further progress in explaining a situation. 'Thinking outside the box' may be the only way forward to full explanations in these cases. For example, research on Alzheimer's disease has heavily concentrated on amyloid plaques for a long time now, but has produced little progress in fully accounting for the disease. The problem calls for creative, not consensus, thinking.
The strong majority position in science can sometimes be wrong and hostile to new opinions. For example, when the idea was first mooted that Earth's crust is divided into large fragments that 'float' on an underlying partly melted layer and that whole continents, once residing close together, gradually moved apart until widely separated (plate tectonics), it was widely resisted by geologists among whom a consensus to the contrary existed.
It took many years for this intercontinental drift and plate tectonics model to become established, as the evidence in its favour gradually accumulated and neatly explained very many observations – in other words, as scientific convergence emerged.
William Reville is an emeritus professor at UCC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
16 hours ago
- Irish Times
Four new films to see this week: Jurassic World Rebirth, The Shrouds, Beat the Lotto and Sudan, Remember Us
Jurassic World: Rebirth ★★★☆☆ Directed by Gareth Edwards. Starring Scarlett Johansson, Mahershala Ali, Jonathan Bailey, Rupert Friend, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Ed Skrein. 12A cert, gen release, 133 min Friend plays a representative of big pharma tasked with extracting organic material from certain dinosaurs that may help in the production of life-saving drugs. He recruits 'covert operative' Johansson to fire the guns, palaeontologist Bailey to do the brainwork and rough-hewn Ali to pilot the boat. The film, while no classic, works as a refreshing blast of matinee exuberance after the pomposity of the previous three films. The cast do some good work with pseudo-Hawksian dialogue. Third best in the whole series (or maybe even second). For whatever little that is worth. Full review DC The Shrouds ★★★★☆ Directed by David Cronenberg. Starring Vincent Cassel, Diane Kruger, Guy Pearce, Sandrine Holt, Elizabeth Saunders, Jennifer Dale, Eric Weinthal. 16 cert, limited release, 119 min A sombre tech wizard (Cassel) has devised a system for allowing the bereaved to watch their loved ones decaying in the grave. This could hardly be a more personal film for Cronenberg. He has explained that the recent death of his wife inspired the piece, and, with his slicked-back grey hair and precise diction, Cassel has something of the director's physical presence. This is just the sort of unclassifiable oddity that the greatest directors, now less concerned with expectations, manage late into fecund careers. Not a traditional horror. Not a traditional anything. But essential. Full review DC READ MORE Beat the Lotto ★★★★☆ Directed by Ross Whitaker. G cert, limited release, 82 min Cracking documentary on the 1992 scheme by a syndicate to buy all the Lotto numbers on a rollover weekend and practically guarantee a profit. Whitaker has a fascinating subject in Stefan Klincewicz, who headed the scheme, and a winning aesthetic in his judiciously selected low-fi cuts from Irish TV, skilfully assembled by editor Nathan Nugent. Against this grim-looking place, hit by emigration and high unemployment, this was and is a much-needed good-news story. Archive footage of Ray Bates, the accordion-playing face of the Lottery, adds further gaiety. Full review TB Sudan, Remember Us ★★★★☆ Directed by Hind Meddeb. Limited release, 78 min This vital time capsule taps the emotional and revolutionary fervour of Sudan's 2018-19 uprising, sometimes livestreamed or captured on phones, against the 30-year rule of President Omar al-Bashir. The film opens, four years later, in an uncertain Khartoum. Gunfire on emptied streets signals Sudan's complex civil war, a conflict that receives scandalously little coverage in the West. Sudan, Remember Us gives voice to the ordinary revolutionaries it portrays. Several of those depicted have fled to Egypt, but the art created to sustain the revolution remains. As one activist hopefully insists, 'Poetry is eternal.' Full review TB
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Scientific consensus is not a fruitful concept
The term scientific consensus – as in 'there is a scientific consensus on climate change' – is often used to characterise a matter considered to be scientifically settled. But the concept of consensus is poorly suited to science, where conclusions must always remain provisional and revisable in the light of new evidence. The concept of 'convergence' better describes the nature of the scientific enterprise. Convergence means we can begin to have confidence that science is accurately/truly describing a phenomenon when the evidence from many and diverse approaches all point to the same explanation. The relative merits of the concepts of consensus and convergence were discussed recently in a recent editorial in Science , and elaborated by Chuck Dinerstein in The American Council for Science and Health . The value of the convergence concept is illustrated by the history of the MMR vaccine and the claims that this vaccine causes autism. There is a huge amount of evidence from very many lines of investigation that MMR vaccines do not cause autism – in other words, there is extremely strong scientific convergence pointing to this conclusion. READ MORE Nevertheless, US secretary for health Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy jnr does not accept this conclusion, and has asked the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct a new study to demonstrate cases where MMR vaccination does cause autism. [ The global fight for science in the face of Trump's attacks Opens in new window ] Given the strength of evidence to date, it seems highly improbable the CDC will demonstrate any link between MMR and autism. Even if it does produce some evidence, the fact remains that innumerable past studies have found no link. A single contrary indication would not destroy the existing convergence of evidence, which will remain even if a single or a few exceptions come to light. If exceptions do emerge, the onus will be on proponents of the MMR/autism link to explain why scientific convergence so overwhelmingly indicates the opposite conclusion. And, of course, those who now argue for a link between MMR and autism, in the absence of evidence to date to support their claim, would seize on a single apparent demonstration of a link in some cases as a demonstration that 'scientific consensus' is broken, and they would be emboldened to greatly intensify their campaign against vaccination. In other words, as far as the evidence goes they would have the tail wag the dog and would certainly sow great confusion and persuade many parents not to vaccinate their children, with disastrous consequences. Creative people who are not completely shackled by existing paradigms are very important when science consistently struggles over a long period to make further progress in explaining a situation On the other hand, the convergence concept would not lend itself to any such easy manipulation. A single contrary demonstration, albeit interesting and demanding further investigation, would remain a single demonstration to confront innumerable published demonstrations to the contrary. Another weakness of the consensus concept is that it can be used to bully scientists who dissent from majority opinion. This can be done by refusing monetary support to fund the researches of scientists who question the consensus position. I would imagine that the minority of climate scientists currently seeking support to study potential natural explanations of global warming unrelated to greenhouse gas emissions are finding it very hard to win funding from grant-awarding bodies dominated by scientists hostile to any questioning of the conventional 'consensus'. [ Political correctness now a bullying tactic aimed at stifling legitimate debate Opens in new window ] Creative people who are not completely shackled by existing paradigms are very important when science consistently struggles over a long period to make further progress in explaining a situation. 'Thinking outside the box' may be the only way forward to full explanations in these cases. For example, research on Alzheimer's disease has heavily concentrated on amyloid plaques for a long time now, but has produced little progress in fully accounting for the disease. The problem calls for creative, not consensus, thinking. The strong majority position in science can sometimes be wrong and hostile to new opinions. For example, when the idea was first mooted that Earth's crust is divided into large fragments that 'float' on an underlying partly melted layer and that whole continents, once residing close together, gradually moved apart until widely separated (plate tectonics), it was widely resisted by geologists among whom a consensus to the contrary existed. It took many years for this intercontinental drift and plate tectonics model to become established, as the evidence in its favour gradually accumulated and neatly explained very many observations – in other words, as scientific convergence emerged. William Reville is an emeritus professor at UCC
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
The Lunar Society is a cautionary tale for Trump's America
This week, America celebrates 1776 – that is, the moment on July 4th of that year when it declared independence from the British. But as the holiday unfolds, leaders in Washington should also consider a year that fell later in the same century: 1791. This was the moment when Britain discovered just how damaging political populism can be for scientific innovation. And while the episode is barely known in America, it ought to make for sobering reading there, particularly as President Donald Trump pushes his 'big, beautiful' tax and spending Bill through both houses of Congress. This is the story of the Lunar Society, a network of entrepreneurs, scientists and curious citizens that emerged in Birmingham in the mid-18th century. It was based around dinners held during the full moon to aid travel (hence its name). Over several decades, this network unleashed inventions that accelerated the industrial revolution, including the discovery of oxygen and carbonated water (Joseph Priestley), advanced steam engines (James Watt) and innovative ceramics (Josiah Wedgwood). READ MORE Think of it as an 18th-century version of Silicon Valley, a place where innovation erupted because key individuals were close to each other and operated in an intellectually diverse and free community with far fewer political controls than in places such as London. In 1791, Britain experienced a wave of political polarisation and populism. Mobs attacked Lunar Society workshops, innovators such as Priestly emigrated and the network crumbled. 'The damage went beyond physical destruction,' David Cleevely, a British entrepreneur, notes in a new book, Serendipity. 'The riots sent a clear message about the vulnerability of intellectual networks to political pressure ... and a climate of fear descended.' American scientists tell me that research programmes are being culled if they contain words or prefixes such as 'trans-', 'bi-' or 'gender' – even if used in connection with, say, 'binomial stars' or 'transgenic' mice This resonates 234 years later. In the US, there has been a wave of hand-wringing from scientists about Trump's attack on research. At Harvard, for instance, $2 billion in funding for (mostly) medical research is at risk because of the president's political vendetta against the university. At Nasa, half of the budget for scientific research is at risk under Trump's 2026 funding plans. Billions of dollars are slated to be wiped from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health budgets, too. Indeed, Cassidy Sugimoto, a professor of public policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, suggested this week in London that the totality of Trump's moves meant that science faced a '50 per cent cut' in all US government research funding. 'Trump has cut science funding to its lowest levels in decades,' she lamented. But what is as notable as these numbers is the fear aroused by Trump's political attacks on 'woke' causes (such as diversity) and the science that his populist supporters dislike (such as vaccine research). This is not just affecting institutions such as Harvard; American scientists tell me that research programmes are being culled across the country if they contain controversial words or prefixes such as 'trans-', 'bi-' or 'gender' – even if used in connection with, say, 'binomial stars' or 'transgenic' mice. 'It's Orwellian – like an artificial intelligence program just cuts anything with those words,' one eminent mathematician tells me. [ Trump administration's assault on science focused and co-ordinated Opens in new window ] In response, scientists are swapping secretive notes about how to avoid the censors. Internal battles have erupted at prestigious institutions such as the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine about whether or not to capitulate to Trump. Meanwhile, some scientists are leaving. In April, the journal Nature calculated that job applications by US scientists to institutions in Canada, Europe and non-China Asia were 41 per cent, 32 per cent and 39 per cent higher respectively in 2025 than 2024. And, this week, France proudly unveiled its first official group of US 'scientific refugees': an eight-strong cohort of researchers who are heading to Aix-Marseille university. Trump supporters tell me these departures don't matter, since they are just a drop in the vast ocean of American talent. The White House also insists that scientific funding structures were so bloated they needed an overhaul to unleash a new 'Golden Age' of science. Moreover, there is no sign that this assault has actually hurt the innovation machine in places such as Silicon Valley – or at least not yet. That is perhaps no surprise. In fields such as artificial intelligence, a growing proportion of research now occurs in the private sector. And many innovators in California are trying to shut out the noise coming from Washington and focus on their own projects instead. 'It's a coping tactic,' one tells me. But the moral of the Lunar Society saga is that no innovation network is safe. This attack is crazily self-destructive. So this July 4th, let us hope that Trump's shocking onslaught on science will be reversed. In the meantime, the country's business leaders and politicians urgently need to back lobby groups such as 314 Action, which is fighting Trump's plans, and speak up themselves. Think of that when you next see a bottle of sparkling water – and then remember 1791. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
