Many arguments have been made in support of limiting human industry because of their perceived impact on so-called "global warming", most of the based on a "scientific consensus". This fallacious argument concludes that since the majority of experts agree on the broad outlines -- but not the details -- of a phenomena, then the emerging consensus must be true. This is misguided for several reasons. The first is a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific knowledge, and the second, a misunderstanding of the nature of science itself.
Scientific knowledge is the body of knowledge (laws, theories, assumptions, observations, etc.) that is developed using empirical observations, and following established or theoretical scientific concepts. As such, it is always up for revision. Consider that prior to Copernicus and Galileo, the finest scientific minds had reached a "consensus", viz., that the sun revolved around the earth. The only thin that they disagreed upon were the details, viz., did the planets' orbits constitute perfect spheres or were they ellipses. As humanity's ability to make accurate empirical observations grew, the paradigm which explained the movement of the heavens had to be revised. All of which means to say that scientific knowledge is never "firm", as even "laws" are up for revision with sufficient proof. A "consensus" is at best, a paradigm, and at worst, group-think. The history of science shows us that simply because a majority of scientists believe something to be true doesn't make it so.
Which brings me to the second misunderstanding of science. Science, broadly speaking, consists of all of the discipline and practice, which would include scientific knowledge, technique, and methodology. Strictly speaking, however, science is a method. And the scientific method concerns itself with making observations concerning phenomena, then deducing or inferring explanations for the phenomenon in question, promoting an answer, and then testing and revising it mercilessly until it adequately explains the phenomenon, until the explanation is revised again by someone else. As such, the scientific method is a skeptic's methodology -- relentless questioning -- which would seem to preclude something like a "consensus". What's more, the people who "believe in science", fundamentally misunderstanding what they purport to believe, and making the doctrines something akin to articles of faith. Appeals by laypeople to the indisputable authority of "the scientific consensus" is akin to appeals by laypeople to the indisputable authority of religious conclaves, like say, the Council of Nicea. There is no such thing as a scientific authority, because the next day a new discovery will complete explode established theories, not to speak of a committee-like consensus. Case in point, archaeologists recently discovered ancient footprints in Mexico shatter human migration theories.
LONDON (AFP) - British scientists said they have found 40,000-year-old human footprints in central Mexico, shattering theories that mankind arrived in the Americas tens of thousands of years later from Asia.
The discovery was made in September 2003 near the city of Puebla, 130 kilometers (88 miles) southeast of Mexico City, said Silvia Gonzalez, from Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), who led the team of researchers.
The footprints, which were found in an abandoned quarry close to the Cerro Toluquilla volcano, were subsequently studied and dated by a multinational team of scientists.
"The footprints were preserved as trace fossils in volcanic ash along what was the shoreline of an ancient volcanic lake," Gonzalez said. "Climate variations and the eruption of the Cerro Toluquilla volcano caused lake levels to rise and fall, exposing the volcanic ash layer."
She said the discovery challenges the traditionally held view that settlers first crossed the Bering Straits, from Russia to Alaska, at the end of the last ice age, around 11,500 to 11,000 years ago.
Evidence for this theory comes from "Clovis Points" tools used to hunt mammoths found in many locations in the American continent.
But the discovery of footprints provides new evidence that humans settled in the Americas as early as 40,000 years ago, Gonzalez said.
"We think there were several migration waves into the Americas at different times by different human groups," she said.
There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus". It is an absurd appeal to authority. And taking the knowledge that authorities present us with is antithetical to the very ideas of science. Soon, the discovery that humans arrived on the American continent 30,000 prior to what they had originally believed will become contested because aboriginal groups will have concerns separate from the scientific truth, viz., preserving their pedigrees and legitimacy. The same thing happens with global warming -- so much political capital has been staked on a meaningless "consensus" that even if they proved it otherwise, the truth of its refutation would be denied by parties whose political stake rests on that authority.
Comments