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.
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.