Monday, 10 November 2014

Non-consensus science and what it means

I have written about about non consensus in science before, in fact just recently I referred to in my climate change posts. However, I think there is a big misunderstanding regarding scientific consensus that conspiracy theorists, pseudo scientists and theists alike seem to not understand.

In a nutshell "non-consensus does not make the alternative view correct."

Its really something that should seem simple, but which does not seem to be this way with people that follow illogical thinking patterns. Non-consensus means that the scientists that disagree with a certain way something is interpreted, have reasons and valid proofs to show that there interpretation could be or is correct. The thing is these scientists have evidence to back them. This is what non-consensus is, its an opposing view backed by facts. Non-consensus does not mean, I don't like this fact as it does not seem right to me in my personal opinion.

For example, when we consider creationism versus evolution. Creationists do not hold a non-consensus opinion as they have no facts to back up their claims. Creationists in fact support a false claim, as there is no proof to back what they say. In fact, some of their claims have been shown to be false, such as the flagellum.

As such dear theists, if science disagrees on something, it does not imply your opinion i.e god is correct. Its just that the non-consensus view are scientifically interpreting the results in a different way. However, the conclusions are still backed and as such it is rational. Your belief is not backed, as such it is irrational.