 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
Why 'consensus' is a dangerous conceptJanuary 24, 2007 |
“No one is thinking if
everyone is thinking alike”
— General George S. Patton Jr. There’s a move among meteorologists to purge from their membership and TV news shows anyone who doesn’t buy what amounts to Al Gore’s views on “Global Warming.” They use those hoary old arguments “everybody knows,” “there’s general agreement,” “experts believe” and the newly popular “there’s consensus.” Sorry but it’s a little hard for me to take seriously folks who are totally convinced about what will happen in 20 years who can’t accurately predict next week. “Global warming” may be simple climate changes. “Climate” itself connotes change. That it’s primarily caused by humans is still debatable. That it’s used by statists to justify more government is obvious. As such, those who promote it as a reason for more international controls are as suspect as the corporate research which refutes portions of it. Both need open discussion and consideration on their relative merits. There are too many dogmas currently hiding behind “consensus.” To fully understand the current debate over climate and other matters it’s time to revive another word — heretic. Heresy is a common concept in many religions. It appears to be present in the sciences. Religions persecute heretics for lack of faith. Too much “science” pretends not to. The attempt by many to simply “close the debate” over global warming and eliminating the dissenters illustrate the persecution of the new heretics. Today’s Torquemadas dismiss ad hominem those funded by corporations or individuals with a “special interest,” such as oil companies. This is lazy, shabby and neglects other special interests who promote the fear of Global Warming as an implementation tool for their socialist and internationalist agendas. No scientific debate should ever really be closed. Positions and conclusions should always be defended. When my grand-daughter questioned at age six if the world was round I was obligated to explain. Many former “consensus” views have been overturned or else we’d still be teaching the elements as earth, air, fire and water. There was almost universal opposition to Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin. Every generation has produced learned people who bunched up with other learned people and who were dead wrong. Most of today’s Darwinians get as uptight when challenged as the creationists they overturned did a century ago. But as I am compelled to respond to my grand-daughter with more than blind faith, today’s Darwinians are obligated to do the same. Once again, too many simply rail against “creationists” and avoid many simple questions posed by sciences such as microbiology. They hide behind “ that argument’s over” and “consensus.” There are other areas where consensus claims are used as a debate stifler. Try the benefits of early childhood education, known to opponents as pre-school institutionalization. What it really promotes is faith in government over family. Those pushing devices to increase “voter turnout,” some totally ridiculous, claim consensus around the faith that it’s beneficial to a democratic society. Why? Low turnout is as likely to mean satisfaction as apathy. High turnout could mean total disgust. There is no correlation between voter turnout and intelligent voting. Slobbering over “consensus” is based on the false premise that somehow placing all options to a given topic in some intellectual blender will give you the best solution. Often not all options are even included while some are basically false. That’s like adding arsenic to salad dressing. It’s not just irrational, it’s absurd. Scientists who claim “consensus” are lazy at best and deceitfully hiding an agenda at worst. Politicians claiming they are “consensus builders” are either blowing smoke or unable to recognize they can only accomplish that goal by believing in nothing. Voters are better off choosing between the various ideologies available rather than attempting to weasel out of picking one under the cover of “consensus.” Scientists should be prepared to constantly justify their basic premises not only about old orthodoxies but before forcing the acceptance of new ones. |
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
