Talk:Scientific consensus

Scientific consensus on the non-danger of gsm use?

Can anybody help in this, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health#Scientific_consensus_or_not.3F Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Changes by IP

Nothing here about the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An IP editor has edited in three times now the same edit [1][2][3] and apparently refuses to come to the talk page even after he was reverted two times and WP:BRD pointed out clearly. I won't revert again but wouldn't mind if some other editor did. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC) I've reverted the ip and requested they present their concerns here. Vsmith (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC) The IP (not me) reverted again, and I've now reverted it back, and repeated the request for them to explain why they consider their wording to be an improvement. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Firstly, there is a term "Anonymous" to describe the so-called "IP editor", I don't like being called IP. Secondly, it is not me edited in three times on the same edit but you reverted my edit twice for no good reason, i don't think it is my responsibility to open a section in talk page. i.e. Can i go revert a random edit and ask the victim to open a talk page? Lastly, since more people come revert my edit (again for no real reason), so i buy the "consensus" part and stop reverting your rvs now. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Actually it is, See the be bold, if reverted then discuss cycle known as BRD. I note you only joined us here after I requested semi-protection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Interesting, so you can revert any edit and enforce the victim to open a talk page? I don't think you really addressed my point. Let's say if there is a troll, who go revert your edits for no reason and keep reverting your rvs, then you ask the troll to stop and explain on talk page, but you don't ask yourself if the revert is absurd. If the troll doesn't stop, then you open a talk page because there is no choice, and you discuss how to deal with the troll. The situation here is that you acted like a troll because you revert my edit with no real reason. Also, you sounded like WP:BRD above everything, but Wikipedia also tells people to use common sense, not to mention WP:IGNORE. Now, I can wait and give you time to criticize(or improve) my edit and if there is no good reason again, then you are just trolling me and I will revert it again. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC) If you add something and people disagree, the burden is on you to justify the edit. It's just logical. You are not a "victim" if your edits are judged not to improve the encyclopedia. As Wikipedia is a community of editors rather than a group of authors, there is no room for egos; communication and discussion (and ultimately consensus) are essential. Otherwise Wikipedia would be a chaotic mess of profanity, spam, and bias. --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC) That's right, but you forgot revert is an edit too. You revert an edit and people disagree, the burden is on you to justify the edit. Where is the reason you disagree, I can't find it anywhere. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC) No, it's not. That's why the B and R are separated on the BRD page. Articles reach stages of a sort of consensus-based equilibrium. Controversial edits at that point constitute "being bold" (sticking with the same language). Reverting back to that equilibrium is not the same thing. --Rhododendrites (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC) You come up with a lot of your theory which I don't agree, but since you insist on the BRD page, I find WP:REVEXP very interesting when going through the BRD page. Clearly I requested reasons to refute my edit, which no one did. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC) I'm pretty sure 14.198.220.253 gets the point and is simply trolling us given his apparent knowledge of other WP guidelines. He could (and should) have used this section to explain his edits and instead used it to play the victim. Advise to 14.198.220.253: if you revert again with no consensus you'll mostlikely get blocked. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Play the victim? Gaba you are driving us away from consensus and i advise you not to use harassment and threat again. We have revision history and there is simply no way I can get away with "playing victim", why don't you reason the edits instead? My first edit is "Improve wordings", the following revert is replied by "cn tags ok, but wording not improvement", which negates my argument, thus gives no explanation or whatsoever, so I reverted it with "POV". Then it is you start talking about "consensus" and fake it being a reason. If you don't refute my edit with reasons, then I will proceed with my edit. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC) ip 14..., you were asked to discuss your concerns re: the content changes you wanted. However, I see no such discussion - only complaining. Which leads me to agree with Gaba, and as there is nothing here about improving the article the section will be closed. Vsmith (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not censored, you don't censor me without give it at least a day or two for my reply. Gaba is evidently complaining and it is me who want discussion and explicitly asked for criticism to my edit, which no one did. I don't know how you come to agree with Gaba except for trolling.--14.198.220.253 (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC) No censoring, just hid the unproductive griping. What you need to do here - is to explain how your preferred wording improves the article without off-topic complaining. Discuss the content not other editors. Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Absurd. You come revert my edit without any legitimate reason, and I come here giving you chance. Discuss the content not other editors. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Vsmith is right. You are not responding properly, and thus you are not showing a positive learning curve. I am restoring the hatting. If you remove it and/or continue this disruption, I suggest a block or topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC) No. You are not responding properly, and thus you are not showing a positive attitude toward consensus. To achieve consensus, I expressed my concerns, answered everyone's reply and requested you to challenge and discuss my edit(as some of you also suggested) but none of you replies. What i've received instead is utter ignorance, threat, harassment and disruption. This reply not only serves as justification on my edit and rvs but also justify my behavior and reasonable approach toward consensus, as I was being attacked. You can't stop me from discussion and revert for no reason or I will report you regardless of what kind of ban you misuse. Your disruptive behaviors(or WP:VAND, WP:TROLL) come with evidences and list as follows: * Disruption: NewsAndEventsGuy disrupts an edit without explaining his revert, it is required as stated in consensus. His disruptive behavior attempts to either block my edit or start an edit-war (as stated in WP:REVEXP, part of BRD). Nevertheless, it is an all-out against consensus. To achieve consensus, I questioned the reason behind NewsAndEventsGuy's POV, and requested him (and everyone) to explains the reason against my edit as suggested in BRD (or consensus). No one replies and I am still waiting. * Gaming the system: Gaba p disrupts my edit with the reason "consensus". In other words, he reverts my edit without discussion and explanation to justify his action first (as required in consensus and WP:BRD), I have no responsibility to open a talk and justify my revert due to his misuse and trolling behavior, i reverted with "Gaba since when you become consensus, pls see WP:BRD" and he ignored. His disruptive and abusive behavior is against consensus and deserves a ban. In fact, this trick is used so often that it is stated clearly as abuse known as BRD misuse or revert ninja, which also means I don't have to follow BRD due to his misuse. There is an explicit rule Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" covers his edit summary and he clearly violated it. Therefore, I can revert, I have no responsibility to justify my edit, justify my reverts and justify my attitude. Imo, Gaba also games the system, this violation worse than going against consensus, enough to justify any mere "not respond properly" or "no consensus" action(if exists at all) of the victim(s), you should question his revert according to BRD too. * Threat and harassment: Gaba p's misuse on BRD was reverted by me quickly and he is well-informed to follow BRD as I told in edit summary("Gaba since when you become consensus, pls see WP:BRD") , which means he has to provide explanation against my edit in edit summary or talk page but he didn't. What he did instead, he went on a rant and threatened me as if I am the one who reverted for no explanation, his disruptive behavior moves us away from consensus. No one provided any justification (as I requested for consensus) to refute my edit so far but disruption continues as if I am the one who violated BRD, ignores my arguments and moves us away from consensus, eg. NewsAndEventsGuy(I note you only joined us here after I requested semi-protection.) , Gaba p(Advise to 14.198.220.253: if you revert again with no consensus you'll mostlikely get blocked. Cheers.) , Brangifer(not responding properly, disruption, I suggest a block or topic ban.)...etc. Lastly, I have no responsibility to achieve any consensus with trolls and clarify my edit which cannot be reverted unless backed by explanation, WP:DRNC. If you fail to refute my edit and lack incentive to do so, then I will proceed with my edit as the policies follow. If you game the system, threaten and ban me for no reason, then I will report you. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Drama mode off. WP:FOC; I have prepped an ANI and am holding it in my sandbox pending the IP's choice about restoring vs discussing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC) WP:CIVIL, Brangifer hatted this section and wanted to end it with ban, if I don't justify my action, then no matter whatever i said, your ban seems just. Therefore, I see no point requiring every posts in tree FOC, WP:UCS, but you can "hat" the reply if you know how. Back on content, if you don't explain your revert, then I revert my edit back. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Threats to continue your edit warring won't help you. We edit collaboratively here, and if you won't do that, then you don't belong at Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have left a (hopefully) clear explanation of why his/her behavior is edit warring, along with a final warning, for anonymous editor 14.* on their talk page. If the edit warring continues, please notify me if I'm around or post at WP:ANEW. —Darkwind (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

ThanksNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Popper / Kuhn

I don't think

Most models of scientific change rely on new data produced by scientific experiment. Karl Popper proposed that since no amount of experiments could ever prove a scientific theory, but a single experiment could disprove one, all scientific progress should be based on a process of falsification... Among the most influential challengers of this approach was Thomas Kuhn...

is right. Kuhn's theory is a theory of how science, actually in practice, changes. Popper's theory is a theory of the logical structure of scientific theory. I think its an error to believe they are in opposition. Kuhn might be said to challenge those who naively believe Popper's theory describes the actual evolution of science, but that's different William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

In his work Popper emphasised demarcating a scientific theory from pseudoscience/non-science based on the nature of the theories proposed. I don't remember him emphasising anything about scientific progress itself when discussing falsification (I can't recall off the top of my head anything from The Logic of Scientific Discovery, which is cited, that discusses it). Perhaps my reading of the material was off, or there is some specific work I didn't read (as I see the wikipedia article on popper discusses ideas on progress). Kuhn emphasised, in his work about demarcation, the importance of the culture the community adopted in their approach, while largely but no completely agreeing with Popper. If I recall I think Kuhn believed that Popper's type of reasoning, of rejecting something through the criteria of falsification, only really applied during paradigm shifts where the scientist became more like a philosopher, and most work was done as "normal science" in standard periods. So he didn't dismiss Popper, he just didn't think it was required for most work in practice. Thagard put emphasis on progress. Thagard combined both Popper and Kuhn's views about theory and culture while also emphasising that there should be a history of progress. I've written in more detail here with the sources given: Astrology_and_science#Philosophy_of_science (where Kuhn,Popper, Thagard use Astrology as the quintessential example of pseudoscience for demarcation). So it may be worth mentioning Thagard more so in relation to progress. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, I think you have a point. The statement seems a bit too dogmatic. Maybe it can be softened a bit while still recognizing the contributions of both (or all three) men. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Popper is not talking about the logical structure of scientific theories but rather the epistemology of theories. Kuhn's objection is that falsification does not work this way in actual science. Anomalies must accumulate during normal science that lead to revolutionary changes in science (i.e., theory replacement). So, Kuhn was a challenger of Popper's purely philosophical analysis.I am One of Many (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If one is talking about actual practice, I would think the sociology of science is inherently bettered positioned to address it than philosophy. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert by I am One of Many

The minor edit on the line "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method." should be converted to "Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument, and it is not the scientific method." and it is an improvement for WP:CLARITY, which is also our rule on WP:MoS.

"Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument." is more clear and concise than "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument.", firstly, "by itself" is unnecessary. Secondly, the meaning is the same but the latter leaves the readers (and me) in doubt. "Scientific consensus is not by myself(?) scientific argument.", "Scientific consensus is not by yourself(?) scientific argument.", "Scientific consensus is not by science(?) a scientific argument." or "Scientific consensus is by science(?) a scientific argument." ..etc.

"it is not a scientific method." is more clear and concise than "it is not part of the scientific method.", firstly, if X is not part of Y, then X is just not (part of all parts of) Y. Secondly, given X is not Y, when you put "part of" in the sentence, you leave the readers (and me) in doubt on "which part?" "Can X be Y?" ..etc.

Next, I have to clarify that it seems that I am One of Many didn't assume good faith and falsely claim my edit "good faith edit" and ninja-reverted my edit. Anyone with poor writing style can make obscure sentences, unnecessary words, and maybe distort the original meaning(aka. weasel words).

His counterargument, "descriptive of the relationship between consensus and scientific methods" as explained clearly above is "unnecessarily descriptive" to distort the original meaning, and violates our rule and usual practice as stated in WP:MoS --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see those as weasel words. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument for a claim, but it is certainly part of a general argument. For example, in climate change, scientific consensus is part of the argument but is not by itself a scientific argument for climate changes. Scientific consensus is not a scientific method, but scientific consensus is crucial for determining which methods are acceptable. So you see, these issues are not as black and white as you with to make them.I am One of Many (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Then? Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument? And scientific consensus is not a scientific method? So you see, these issues are not as blackwhite as you with to make them. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

To show that I did respond to your argument, my response "Then?" questions that you didn't respond to my argument (and my edit). I ended the response with clear and concise argument that "Scientific consensus is not a scientific argument? And scientific consensus is not a scientific method?" in respond to your confusion, which also appears exactly the same as my edit, so it also justifies my edit as a clear and concise improvement. To show that, I quote and address your words, so you can see for yourself:

"Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument for a claim, but it is certainly part of a general argument."

In my edit, the line (in both version), "Scientific consensus is not (by itself) a scientific argument.", the subject is "scientific argument" instead of "general argument" and it is not objectionable for anyone with a pair of eyes. Therefore, you didn't respond to the edit and show that you hardly pay attention to my edit and also ninja-reverted my edit. You are not showing a positive learning curve.

"For example, in climate change, scientific consensus is part of the argument but is not by itself a scientific argument for climate changes."

How about,

"For example, in climate change, scientific consensus is part of the (general) argument but is not a scientific argument for climate changes."

First, I can't see how does the meaning differ. Second, it doesn't matter whether it differs or not, you have to compare the two in respond to my argument.

You did show your interest in using the weasel(or noise) words, but you didn't respond to the deletion of the noise words "by itself".

"Scientific consensus is not a scientific method, but scientific consensus is crucial for determining which methods are acceptable."

I agree with you on the former, but the latter doesn't serve as justification to how "part of" should be added to confuse the reader(?). So you see, you still didn't respond to my argument except that you also used my line. Please show us how the deletion of "part of" and "by itself" don't make the sentence more clear and concise, and address my arguments on my first post. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 14, you also changed from

"not part of the scientific method"

to

"not a scientific method"

with two objectionable results. First the usual expression, I thought, is "the scientific method". If you wish to say "a scientific method" first please show us RSs that identify the group of scientific methods of which consensus is not, according to you, "a" member. Second, regarding the words "by itself" I agree with I am One of Many (talk · contribs), and I don't believe your response really addressed his argument. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, you are not responding to my argument. It is also not the first time you revert my edit and avoid discussion, you are not showing a positive learning curve.

First the unnecessarily definite quantification "the", I thought, refers to this scientific method. If you wish to say some other "scientific method" first please show us RSs that identify the group of scientific methods of which consensus is not, according to you, "the" and "a" differs. Second, regarding the words "by itself" you drop only an agreement, and I don't believe your response really addressed my argument. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The edit was not an improvement, and it was not a "minor" edit. The revert was proper. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. I don't think your agreement serves any value to the discussion, you came drop an agreement without even a response on why my edit is not an improvement. Please WP:FOC. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

14.198.220.253 (talk · contribs), will you agree to go with me (and anyone else who wishes) to WP:THIRD? Or is this thread a bit of disruptive obfuscation? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You decide, because it looks like you refuse or give up discussion unless we go through either one of the process, yet I responded to everyone's arguments, meaning I am waiting for response from you. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thank you, 14.* for explaining in more detail your rationale for the changes you want to make. That is helpful. Regarding the first one, the removal of "by itself" -- I can see how "by itself" looks unnecessary and confusing, but on the other hand, I can see how it is important to make it clear that "scientific consensus" is a legitimate piece of evidence in various arguments, and "by itself" is an attempt to do that. 14.* -- do you have a suggestion about how that could be conveyed more clearly than using "by itself"? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"scientific consensus" is a legitimate piece of evidence in various arguments, and "by itself" is an attempt to do that.

First, I have either no opinion or just don't agree on the first half. The first half has a lot of words which need to be clarified and I can't understand what you are talking about exactly, "legitimate" and "various" in particular. Second, I cant see how "by itself" can attempt to do "that". Please show us how you interpret the line "scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument." and "scientific consensus is not a scientific argument.", step-by-step preferably. Third, given that the line "scientific consensus is not (by itself) a scientific argument." has subject "scientific argument", I can't see how your argument on "a legitimate piece of evidence in various arguments" relevant to the discussion. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand how pointing out what the scientific consensus is on a particular topic can be an important part of a good argument? If you don't yet understand this, I suggest that such lack of understanding should disqualify you from attempting to improve the wording of an article that is trying to make that point, at least until you do understand it. Hopefully that should resolve the discussion of the first proposed change. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you acknowledge that "by itself" is there to emphasize the object, but my point is that the object is there. "Apple is red." "Apple is by itself red.", which is better? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the second proposed change, the replacement of "not part of the" with "not a" -- I do not see 14.*'s explanation as accurately representing the effect of the change. The original phrasing treats "scientific method" as a singular concept, while the new phrasing treats it as a group of concepts. While I can see justifications for both views of the phrase "scientific method", switching from one to the other is quite a significant change, and certainly not simply a minor wording clarification. Something can be not a part of X (considered as a singular concept), without also not being an instance of X (considered as a group of concepts). For example, a tricycle can be not a part of a vehicle, while still being an instance of a vehicle. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Before anything, let me ask you one question, is scientific consensus an instance of a scientific method? I don't think it is. At least not what I understand from scientific method.

First, quoting from you,

the replacement of "not part of the" with "not a" -- I do not see 14.*'s explanation as accurately representing the effect of the change.

For WP:CLARITY, quoting from you again,

For example, a tricycle can be not a part of a vehicle, while still being an instance of a vehicle.

I think your example is perfect. The line "Scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method." leaves us in doubt if scientific consensus can be not part of a scientific method, while still being an instance of a scientific method, so there is an ambiguity we all agree but I haven't seen any proposed change so far. Since scientific consensus is not (an instance of) a scientific method, "part of" should be removed for WP:CLARITY.

Second, regarding "the" and "a", they are irrelevant to the edit as I responded and explained earlier. "The" is a definite quantification, meaning there is an implied concept which can be something else, depends on previous context. Therefore, you have to show us that "the scientific method" does not refer to this scientific method to justify its necessity. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked my example. To answer your first question, scientific consensus, like any other "collective judgment, position, and opinion", is not an instance of any method, scientific or otherwise. Judgments are not methods. Judgments can be evidence. This should hopefully be obvious, no? I don't think I would object to adding a sentence, somewhere in the article, explicitly making that point, if you think it would be helpful.

My understanding of the clause you are proposing to change: "[scientific consensus] is not part of the scientific method", is that scientific consensus (as a type of evidence) cannot substitute for evidence gathered from experiments when doing "the scientific method". Your proposed change removes that meaning, and replaces it with a confusing statement confirming that a type of judgement (scientific consensus) is not a type of method (a scientific method). This is not an improvement in clarity, or even an equivalent statement. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now we truly have consensus. I think you made a very good point and I agree that the deletion on "part of" is unnecessary. Initially, I made such change because I don't think "consensus is not a method" is immediately obvious. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Feyerabend

This:

Lastly, some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained that scientific consensus is purely idiosyncratic and maintains no relationship to any outside truth.

doesn't belong in the "Change over time section". Its seems to trivial for the lede, and there's nowhere else to put it. Personally I think his stuff is bollocks anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. As far as I can see Feyerabend occupies a very small minority position in the extent of his conclusions, with Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy referring to him as an "imaginative maverick" [4]. I also couldn't find where consensus is mentioned in the book, google comes up empty: [5]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikignome topic.... categorization under "scientific method"

This thread relates to edits by 14.198.220.253 (talk · contribs) that would delist a couple pages from the WP:CATEGORY for . His reason seems to be that scientific consensus is not the scientific method; also that peer review is not the scientific method. I thought categories were to facillitate rapid navigation among related topics, and these are all certainly related topics even if one is not entirely defined as a subcomponent of the other. It's small potatoes until the issue is applied in a big way across lots of articles. What do others think?

Examples

• Scientific consensus
• Scientific consensus (Re-Revert)
• Category:Peer review

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me that, I've taken a look on WP:CATEGORY and now that I discover that you are right. According to your revert though, "by your reasoning LOTS of articles would be removed from that category" this is not a legitimate reason, so I reverted it and invited you to talk. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, according to WP:Overcategorization, the first section WP:NOTDEFINING, it says that if a category isn't its defining characteristics, then it shouldn't be categorized. I understand that scientific method is in some way related to scientific consensus, but scientific method is not scientific consensus's defining characteristic, as stated on the line "scientific consensus is not part of the scientific method." The problem when you add scientific method on this page is that it gives the reader an impression that scientific consensus is part of scientific method, clearly not the case. Therefore, I disagree now.

For peer review, I also disagree but it doesn't seem relevant to this page. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Could be, I've never dealt with the technical side of categorization; always believed broad "related" net is more important factor in reaching goal of speedy-user-navigation than narrow gnomish technical specs for the template.

What do others think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree with IP editor. Scientific consensus is only related to peer review in that both are heuristic methods of assessing quality with limited knowledge (and as a result should share a parent category if anything). Scientific consensus is related to scientific method only in that both relate to science. Unless there's some compelling reason for them to be categorized under these inappropriate headings, I'm going to remove the inappropriate categories. 0x0077BE (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Greenfacts "consensus" glossary reference

The text of the Greenfacts reference seems to have been pretty much the same since 2002, according to the Wayback Machine. The text is: "The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field. / Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that: / all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress, / the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions. / Therefore, Scientific Consensus is / NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth". / / But when the scientific expertise / to judge a scientific position is lacking, / the best choice is to rely on the Consensus." This does not provide a source for the text current being argued over. While I do think the argued over text is reasonable, it should be possible to find a source that states it -- otherwise, I do have some sympathy for the idea that it is not important enough to be included in the article. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)