As we hear more and more people talk about the scientific consensus on global climate change, I have come to the conclusion that there is a na’ve trust of scientific viewpoints. I would like to point out some problems with this.
The field of science has two major concepts: theory and application. Theory explains phenomenon shown in data. Application uses theory to solve society’s needs.
Being an electrical engineering student, I feel obligated to use an example involving the movement of electrons. In chemistry and physics, there are theories about the movement of electrons and how they behave. A circuit is the application of these theories.
Chemists, physicists and engineers came to a consensus on how electrons move due to the theory and applications that come from the theory. If a new theory comes to light that would explain the data and how the pre-existing applications fit in the new theory, then this new theory would merit and deserve some debate from the scientific community.
Such a debate might lead to the conclusion that a scientific consensus on electron behavior is wrong or it might further verify what has been believed for years. This is just an example, but the concept applies for all areas of science.
Historically, this is how science has always worked. Scientific consensuses have been made, and new ones come to replace them. For example, scientists once debated whether our solar system was heliocentric (sun-centered) or geocentric (Earth-centered). The consensus of scientists and theologians, up until the 16th century, was geocentric and the sun was a satellite of the earth.
Galileo and Giordano Bruno were big proponents of a sun-centered orbit based off of Nicolas Copernicus’s theory and mathematical models in “De Revolutionibus.” Although both were labeled heretics, their data and theories turned the scientific consensus on its head, leading to the rise of the heliocentric consensus.
Or take this more recent example: 20th-century medical consensus was that stomach ulcers were caused by an excess amount of acid which was controlled mainly by stress level and diet. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s a doctor named Barry Marshall took a fellow doctor’s findings, ran experiments, and concluded that the consensus was wrong. He believed stomach ulcers were related to a bacterium instead.
His conclusion was rejected by the scientific and medical community and he, as a researcher, was dismissed by a leading researcher in his field as “a crazy guy saying crazy things.” To prove his theories, he swallowed a concoction of the bacteria, developed an inflamed stomach lining soon after, and cured himself with antibacterial medicines. In 1985, he invited anyone to prove him wrong. Those who tried could not, and by 1994, the consensus on stomach ulcers changed to what Marshall proposed.
Another problem with scientific consensus is scientists are only human. Man is not perfect and never will be. As long as we are not perfectible, our views are no more perfect than our predecessor’s views. Through our fallibility, the views of one and the views of many are always open to the fires of debate and scrutiny. Scientific consensus is no safer from debate than political doctrine.
In recent years, the proponents of global climate change have declared the debate to be over. Anyone who believes that global temperatures are independent of human activity, is painted as idiots and crazy people saying crazy things, and are even compared to Holocaust deniers.
Although they have every Constitutional right to say such things, there exists no moral right to the comparison. I also cannot think of a worse comment that spits in the face of true scientific inquiry. History has shown that debate is never over, and consensus can be wrong, especially in science.
Ryan Green is a junior majoring in electrical engineering. He can be contacted at [email protected].