
Consensus as Religion - _ttg
https://glenn.thedixons.net/science/6-consensus-as-religion/
======
chrisco255
I fundamentally agree with chaos theory. When I come across predictions based
on non-linear, highly dynamic, multivariate systems, I know that uncertainty
is an exponential function of time in those systems, even if we have a perfect
understanding of how that system works (often not true). This is why I'm a
skeptic of most studies affirming the ideal diet or ones that seek to flatten
psychological profiles to predict behavior or ones that have simple answers
for economic problems or studies attributing all climate change to
anthropogenic CO2 and ones that argue that catastrophic warming will occur in
the 21st century.

When it comes to predicting chaos, there can be no consensus. The only
rational position to take is to prepare for the maximum range of outcomes with
given economic constraints. For example, if we over-corrected for global
warming, investing all of our limited resources into that, and we instead find
ourselves plunged into a 100K-year glacial period by the end of the 21st
century (perhaps caused by supervolcano), will we have saved humanity or
nature from decline or mass extinctions?

~~~
hellisothers
Seems like you gotta pick something and commit to it though, otherwise it
seems like you’ll suffer from decision paralysis and possibly nihilism :)

------
voldacar
It is so true that the internal mental/ideological structure of most
"skepticism" is very similar to religious fundamentalism.

This short article got linked here a few days ago and it's been at the
forefront of my mind since then:
[http://amasci.com/weird/pyrrhon.html](http://amasci.com/weird/pyrrhon.html)

~~~
twiceaday
I feel like you can say this about pretty much anything. When the system being
thought about gets to a certain size, most people default to 'I think how the
people who I trust think.' And most people do not vet this chain of trust
because they don't want to or are simply unable to. After a while, they end up
with convictions they cannot defend rationally.

------
db48x
I definitely agree with that. If you can't tolerate other ideas, then you
aren't doing science.

------
Gollapalli
Any other argument other than "The data shows x", or "inferring from the data"
is probably not science. The author makes solid points, and gives good reasons
to doubt the the climate change consensus, even if those reasons are primarily
sociological.

EDIT: Seeing a lot of comments going grey in this thread, but not a lot of
arguments.

