Theory Convergence & Consensus

[DarkStar]

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ady3211

I found this to be quite an interesting read, since in this day & age of politically correct wokeness which plagues academia, it is important to take note of the dialectic employed

As @caineturbat2003 explained in another thread, utilizing "sex" when referring to the biological sexes of male & female is more grammatically correct; gender has always had cultural connotations to it as opposed to purely biological ones.

Stop using the word "gender" when reffering to biological sexes. Use the word "sex" instead. (DNRcels, do not enter! Grammarcels GTFIH!)

I've started to notice a trend that some of us instead of using the more traditional word "sex" to reffer to biological sexes, they use the word "gendER". I know that not all of us fall into this trap, but others do so. And it's not even just us. Cuckservatives, actual right wingers and even...

incels.is

In these days of political instability, geopolitical tensions, and social discontent around the world, there are continued threats to the principles, conduct, and findings of science. This assault on science has been fueled by flooding the public with confusing information from both traditional and digital media. One concept that creates misunderstanding is “scientific consensus.” It’s time to stop using this shorthand and make clear what it really means.

Scientists take it for granted that the consensus they refer to is not the result of opinion polls of their colleagues or a negotiated agreement reached at a research conclave. Rather, it is a phrase that describes a process in which evidence from independent lines of inquiry leads collectively toward the same conclusion. This process transcends the individual scientists who carry out the research.

I do agree that when you think about it, "scientific consensus" does have a poor sounding to it. Consensus in its literal meaning, means just a mere general agreement or sense of harmony- in other words it's more or less asking for their "take" on it.

To make that clear to politicians and to the public, communication scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson believes that scientists need to talk instead about “convergent evidence.” “Unlike declarations that a consensus exists,” she told me, “a claim that convergent evidence exists honors science’s norms of critique and correction by inviting discussion of the extent of existing knowledge and the multiple ways in which it was developed rather than on what a lay audience is likely to hear as a ‘case closed’ appeal to authority.”

Honestly, when I found out a foid said this, I was taken aback since she actually explains it perfectly.

Using the terminology "scientific consensus" appeals to normies sheep mentality, in which they will assume ": well the scientific community said they reached a consensus so they must be right!"

However, rebutting a claim that convergent evidence exists requires an extra step. Jamieson pointed out that the counterevidence must be assimilated into the evidence that has already been accumulated so that all of it can be interpreted together.

A foid finally realizes how science works!

The yearly poll by the Pew Research Center on trust in science in the United States has consistently showed that although the majority of Democrats agree that scientists should be included in policy decisions that involve science, the majority of Republicans feel that scientists should “focus on establishing sound scientific facts and stay out of public policy debates.”

As they should

I agree with what the editor says here, a "consensus" is for theologians- not scientists.

@GeckoBus @based_meme @WorthlessSlavicShit @Koomersarj @Uggo Mongo @AtrociousCitizen @Cybersex is our hope @Castaway @Stupid Clown

 

[Sewer Sloth]

This is why "the science" that's used to justify things like the covid vaccine is like a religion desu

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

“scientific consensus” has always felt like a theology. “The consensus says X” is just the modern priesthood handing down divine rulings.

 

[Antorian]

"The Science" is the secular/atheist normie's God, but in an infinitely more pathetic form

Far as I see it, if the "scientific consensus" contradicts common sense stuff like there being only two sexes, then its worthless.

 

[Scatius Deletus]

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ady3211

I found this to be quite an interesting read, since in this day & age of politically correct wokeness which plagues academia, it is important to take note of the dialectic employed

As @caineturbat2003 explained in another thread, utilizing "sex" when referring to the biological sexes of male & female is more grammatically correct; gender has always had cultural connotations to it as opposed to purely biological ones.

Stop using the word "gender" when reffering to biological sexes. Use the word "sex" instead. (DNRcels, do not enter! Grammarcels GTFIH!)

I've started to notice a trend that some of us instead of using the more traditional word "sex" to reffer to biological sexes, they use the word "gendER". I know that not all of us fall into this trap, but others do so. And it's not even just us. Cuckservatives, actual right wingers and even...

incels.is

I do agree that when you think about it, "scientific consensus" does have a poor sounding to it. Consensus in its literal meaning, means just a mere general agreement or sense of harmony- in other words it's more or less asking for their "take" on it.

Honestly, when I found out a foid said this, I was taken aback since she actually explains it perfectly.

Using the terminology "scientific consensus" appeals to normies sheep mentality, in which they will assume ": well the scientific community said they reached a consensus so they must be right!"

A foid finally realizes how science works!

As they should

I agree with what the editor says here, a "consensus" is for theologians- not scientists.

@GeckoBus @based_meme @WorthlessSlavicShit @Koomersarj @Uggo Mongo @AtrociousCitizen @Cybersex is our hope @Castaway @Stupid Clown