We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. “Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
– Michael Crichton on dangers of ‘consensus science’ in a 2003 speech, quoted in an article about global warming.
thanks Ben!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I whole heartedly agree with the quote.
But the other side says that they have superior currency to the layman as they are schooled in specific sciences and so their guesses are better. They aren’t necessarily selling pure science, they’re selling guesses by supposedly superior people, and if they’re right, it’s going to be real bad. So do as you are told.
That’s the strangulating logic of all superstitions and the institutions that form from them.
Just as well we didn’t rely on UN sponsored ‘experts’ voting on it when Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution…
Margaret Thatcher is alleged to have said that Consensus is the negation of Leadership – I’d go further and say that acceptance of consensus is a bit like having ten wolves and one sheep voting on who to have for dinner.
Speaking of global warming, don’t forget to purchase some carbon debits.
What ratio of yehsayers to naysayers constitutes a consensus? Should qualifications and experience be weighted, eg should a chemist carry the same weight wrt to climate change as a world renowned hurricane expert who is a meteorologist and geophysical scientist?
To what extent do these people dent the consensus?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Someone once said that a daft idea which caught the imagination of the general public would reach around 50% acceptance before people would come to their senses!
Have a look at what is happening outside Europe
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm
Who says people have to come to their senses at all? A general point. Almost all policy and almost all received wisdom is justified by affirming the consequent. No science required.
‘World renowned’?
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
Somebody doesn’t get it.
“Should qualifications and experience be weighted…”
No. In this case only evidence should be weighed. Reputation and qualifications only come in when prioritising in less important matters what you spend your valuable time on and how much you take on trust. But when you decide you need to know the answer and it really needs to be right, as is the case when making a multi-trillion dollar decision that could kill millions, then there really is no substitute for getting your minds dirty with the detailed evidence.
I’m glad that people are changing their minds after looking more closely at the evidence, and that’s the way science is supposed to work, but I’m not happy with the idea that a critical threshold of experts is what matters. Hopefully, in the short term it might encourage others to be more open minded about AGW, but entering an “our experts are more numerous and expert than your experts” contest is not an argument I’d like to see given any more traction than it already has. We have a long, long future ahead of us.
So, can we all agree with the statement “Consensus is BAD!”? Just so long as we’re all in agreement with that.
Try “Consensus is unreliable.” 🙂
So do we have a concensus on the expression “Concensus is unreliable!”? All agreed? It’s unanymous!