"We're actively looking for this, because if it's true it would be important, but we've not found it yet so we haven't moved to the next stage that will be required if/when we find it"
vs.
"People are spreading this lie and we don't want to seem super sure of ourselves because, hey, we might be wrong and we're not wanting to say that such a thing is categorically impossible but currently the experts say no"
And yes, it's unfortunate that in English these two meanings coincide to a degree. Language can be hard, especially if your trying to fit it into a tweet or headline and people are actively trying to misunderstand you.
But the meta point seems to be, if your political tribe all adopt very stupid opinions on something that you're an expert in, then someone outside the ingroup must be found to blame for that. Of course, if the outgroup all have a stupid opinion then it's proof of their fundamental wrongness and inferiority.
But, if we had to lose one, I'd go for replacing the second meaning. I'm quite happy for it to be "Expert consensus" instead, but is that defensible against someone who politically disagrees with you? Apparently not if you follow climate change science. Who is a journalist to decide that 95% of scientists in an area agreeing is consensus. So here we are.
"We're actively looking for this, because if it's true it would be important, but we've not found it yet so we haven't moved to the next stage that will be required if/when we find it"
vs.
"People are spreading this lie and we don't want to seem super sure of ourselves because, hey, we might be wrong and we're not wanting to say that such a thing is categorically impossible but currently the experts say no"
And yes, it's unfortunate that in English these two meanings coincide to a degree. Language can be hard, especially if your trying to fit it into a tweet or headline and people are actively trying to misunderstand you.
But the meta point seems to be, if your political tribe all adopt very stupid opinions on something that you're an expert in, then someone outside the ingroup must be found to blame for that. Of course, if the outgroup all have a stupid opinion then it's proof of their fundamental wrongness and inferiority.
But, if we had to lose one, I'd go for replacing the second meaning. I'm quite happy for it to be "Expert consensus" instead, but is that defensible against someone who politically disagrees with you? Apparently not if you follow climate change science. Who is a journalist to decide that 95% of scientists in an area agreeing is consensus. So here we are.