.

Consensus science is a term used to describe a theory or claim believed to be founded on insufficient evidence or research, and to owe its support primarily to popular opinion. The term may also be used by people wishing to revive a theory that is generally believed to be false, but that they believe has not been proven so. People using the term believe that the exclusive or primary use of scientific consensus constitutes appeal to authority or appeal to the majority, and that the underlying evidence should be evaluated instead.

Note that the term <i>scientific consensus</i> refers to the actual majority agreement of a particular field, while the term <i>consensus science</i> refers to the use of that consensus as a primary means to demonstrate, establish, or promote a scientific hypothesis or theory.

One who perceives a scientific theory to be supported by both scientific consensus and conclusive evidence would not consider it "consensus science", because a supporting argument can be easily formulated using the existing conclusive evidence. The term "consensus science" does not refer simply to a scientific theory which has a consensus, but to one which uses that consensus as a primary support.

History and Background

Although it existed beforehand, the term consensus science gained wider exposure after a 2003 speech by Michael Crichton titled, "Aliens Cause Global Warming" [735], in which he disussed what he believed to be the impropriety of basing scientific conclusions primarily on scientific consensus. This is the speech which fostered the quote:

:<i>"Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."</i> --Michael Crichton

Another well known individual who publicly cautions about the proper role of consensus in science is Brian David Josephson, Nobel Laureate in Physics. Professor Josephson wrote: "if scientists as a whole denounce an idea this should not necessarily be taken as proof that the said idea is absurd: rather, one should examine carefully the alleged grounds for such opinions and judge how well these stand up to detailed scrutiny."

Examples

It was widely believed that saccharine is dangerous based on the conclusions of animal studies conducted in the 1970s that appeared to show it could cause cancer. However, further studies have failed to confirm that analysis and none have shown a link between normal doses of saccharine and cancer in humans. In this case, the apparent scientific consensus turned out to be false. It is used as an example of the dangers of "consensus science".

There are a number of popular theories which are described by some as consensus science and much like the label junk science, there is often considerable disagreement as to which are supported primarily by consensus and which by conclusive evidence.

The term consensus science is often used as a criticism of the subject or theory to which it is applied, as use of the term implies that scientific consensus is used as the primary means of support. However, it can also be used non-judgmentally as a means of arguing the need for more or better research to clarify the validity of a given theory.

Criticisms

The major criticism of the consensus science term is the claim that by using the term, one is insisting that theories have conclusive or compelling evidence. However, in modern science, establishing proof conclusively can sometimes be problematic since an apparent pattern or reproducible result may not occur the next time the experiment is tried.

External Links

"Consensus Science" and Public Policy

Aliens Cause Global Warming - a Caltech lecture on consensus science

Pathological, Precautionary and Consensus Science - An editorial from the Canadian Association of Physicists.

In Support of Skepticism