Science is an appeal to authority, but where does that authority come from? An interesting Guardian piece by Graham Redfearn on Naomi Oreskes (with a TED Talk of hers at the bottom)
There really is no scientific method.
- Inductive of hypotheses and predictions, true, but actually a rare case
- Deductive of observed evidence, true, but much judgement and interpretation of evidence and experience and of correlation and causation, and with varying faith and trust in people and reports – very little evidence is direct observation causally related to any hypothesis or law.
- And, both confirmation and falsification logic can be flawed by unrecognised assumptions in your model.
- So in practice, almost “anything goes” (Feyerabend), there is much creativity and imagination involved.
- Ultimately science is the emergent and evolving collective consensus (of scientists).
Paradox of modern science:
- Science IS an appeal to authority (albeit the authority of a collective consensus).
This is the root of a large part of the agenda here – where the topic is at the boundaries of accepted science, even questioning the accepted boundaries of science, the consensus cannot come entirely from those who are scientists or with declared interests in science.
Fact: The quality of thinking and questioning required to achieve such consensus cannot be derived entirely the received wisdom of the existing scientific consensus.