My problem with the word "consensus" is that it doesn't lend itself to science. If we had a consensus that pi was 3.1415887, that wouldn't make it true.
I'm not sure I agree with this.
As one goes up the ranks of the sciences (or any institutional discipline) regardless of what the underlying "fact" may be consensus seems to be what moves the masses. A theory gets validated not only because it is "proven" to be a fact, but rather because a large number of scientists with good reputations give it the thumbs up (and we like to think that they do it after extensive testing, but we're all human and the idea that science is devoid of politics from the get-go is really naive, those dudes want awards and tenure just as much as any other person).
I'm not implying that if those dudes say we can fly, we will. That's too crude. My point is that the validation of "fact" has more to do with consensus than most people think and that it goes without saying that this means that even science is always political one way or another. So unless you're out there measuring for yourself, getting the "facts" without any add ons or skew is impossible and even if you do, it still needs consensus to fly and be important to anyone but you. So yes, consensus is much more significant than people give it credit for.
Phew.
alcyone
