Because THEY HAVE NO AGENDA BUT THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH. Right?
Even in cases where this is true, every scientist worthy of the title understands that no word or work ever produced by them is a statement of truth. It is at best a presentation of evidence that suggests a step closer to the truth than the body of human knowledge was before that work.
In other words, even if a scientist pursues only truth in earnest, the scientific process does not allow for it to ever reach truth, only iteratively move closer to it.
In addition, any such statement of findings must stand up to debatefor all time to be determined as even reaching the status of useful in the decision making process.
So "scientific advise" without debate is nothing more than a decree of personal dogmatic interpretation, having completely divorced itself from the scientific process.
There is no such thing as "settled science" or "scientific consensus".
That isn't how science has ever worked.
Those are buzzwords created by marketers and govt. stooges to fool the uneducated masses.
Consensus...when you hear that word grab your wallet. It's a marketing term. It means someone is about to ask for money because A BUNCHA OTHER PEOPLE SMARTER THAN YOU AGREE WITH THIS, SO YOU NEED TO JUST TRUST THEM AND PAY UP.
There is no such thing as "settled science" or "scientific consensus".
At first I agreed with this, but then I thought about it. While I agree that the phrases are oxymoronic, those ideas do exist within the scientific community and have for a long time.
I have had the opportunity to be involved in several subsets of the broader scientific community, having done research and/or been involved in extensive debate within the communities of physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and computer science/information. In each case there is pervasive dogma that is divorced from the ideals of scientific discovery.
In each case there are certain axioms that are unquestionable, and thus unquestioned and more importantly, unfunded. There are also axioms that are questioned, but remain caged, where any questioner is not allowed to think too far outside of accepted interpretations (and also research into such topics remains strictly unfunded).
So while the ideals of science do not allow for consensus, and there are many areas of research that still abide by those ideals, and it is certainly taught that way (except where it is not), the actual practice of science in every branch of it, from top to bottom and for a very long time, does have "settled science" and "consensus".
I used to think this was "the ruling of the old guard". Now I think it may be by design. If we are not allowed to look at certain things (identical to "conspiracy theory" but for the scientific community), we restrict our capacity to make certain world changing advances. If this is true, the implications are interesting.
We're on the same page. When I say science I mean real, ideal science, not the fake politicized bullshit of consensus and "settled" science. The very concept is utterly absurd: all science is about testing and re-testing hypotheses, trying to poke holes in them, trying to disprove them, not the opposite.
Even in cases where this is true, every scientist worthy of the title understands that no word or work ever produced by them is a statement of truth. It is at best a presentation of evidence that suggests a step closer to the truth than the body of human knowledge was before that work.
In other words, even if a scientist pursues only truth in earnest, the scientific process does not allow for it to ever reach truth, only iteratively move closer to it.
In addition, any such statement of findings must stand up to debate for all time to be determined as even reaching the status of useful in the decision making process.
So "scientific advise" without debate is nothing more than a decree of personal dogmatic interpretation, having completely divorced itself from the scientific process.
There is no such thing as "settled science" or "scientific consensus".
That isn't how science has ever worked.
Those are buzzwords created by marketers and govt. stooges to fool the uneducated masses.
Consensus...when you hear that word grab your wallet. It's a marketing term. It means someone is about to ask for money because A BUNCHA OTHER PEOPLE SMARTER THAN YOU AGREE WITH THIS, SO YOU NEED TO JUST TRUST THEM AND PAY UP.
At first I agreed with this, but then I thought about it. While I agree that the phrases are oxymoronic, those ideas do exist within the scientific community and have for a long time.
I have had the opportunity to be involved in several subsets of the broader scientific community, having done research and/or been involved in extensive debate within the communities of physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and computer science/information. In each case there is pervasive dogma that is divorced from the ideals of scientific discovery.
In each case there are certain axioms that are unquestionable, and thus unquestioned and more importantly, unfunded. There are also axioms that are questioned, but remain caged, where any questioner is not allowed to think too far outside of accepted interpretations (and also research into such topics remains strictly unfunded).
So while the ideals of science do not allow for consensus, and there are many areas of research that still abide by those ideals, and it is certainly taught that way (except where it is not), the actual practice of science in every branch of it, from top to bottom and for a very long time, does have "settled science" and "consensus".
I used to think this was "the ruling of the old guard". Now I think it may be by design. If we are not allowed to look at certain things (identical to "conspiracy theory" but for the scientific community), we restrict our capacity to make certain world changing advances. If this is true, the implications are interesting.
We're on the same page. When I say science I mean real, ideal science, not the fake politicized bullshit of consensus and "settled" science. The very concept is utterly absurd: all science is about testing and re-testing hypotheses, trying to poke holes in them, trying to disprove them, not the opposite.