It seems disdain for “consensus” as we know it is nothing new:
“A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”
– Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat (1915-2002)
h/t to WUWT reader JohninReno
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the Business Dictionary: Consensus: Middle ground in decision making, between total assent and total disagreement. Consensus depends on participants having shared values and goals, and on having broad agreement on specific issues and overall direction. Consensus implies that everyone accepts and supports the decision, and understands the reasons for making it. See also collective responsibility.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/consensus.html#ixzz27qzw36Wk
From Wikipedia:Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks the consent, not necessarily agreement about the “favorite” choice of all participants. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the “favorite” of each individual. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together.[1] It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of reaching a consensus decision, and the social and political effects of using this process.
In neither of these two definitions are the adjectives “correct” or “true” used, implying that the term; consensus, cannot be applied to scientific fact.
AGW proponents are constantly banging on about the consensus of scientific opinion, implying that AGW is real. It would appear that their grasp of English vocabulary is as tenuous as their grasp of scientific reality.
Wait, that’s confusing. So, when the Team all said that mann’s work was shoddy, among other things, were they expressing the consensus on him, and believe in his work individually, or is their consensus that he is right, but they don’t believe that, individually?
Brilliant.
I’ll probably get sacked if I can be identified (northern New South Wales) but recently there was a consensus at the provincial university where I work as a part-time librarian that an academic who wrote a humerous poem supporting another very talented academic who’d been sacked after student complaints, was himself sacked.
A poem. Yep, these days you can be sacked for writing a poem in PC academia. The Vice Chancellor described my neighbour’s poem as a “reprehensible elegy”! Needless to say I congratulated my neighbour on being the first man to have ever been sacked for writing a “reprehensible elegy”.
Just in passing, why do students evaluate teachers these days? Back in my day teachers evaluated students.
Oops, humorous.
excellent definition!
Off topic a bit but I want to note here the the PBS Ombudsman in the USA has written a followup piece in his column at http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/
Once again I have written back encouraging PBS to have courage (we get the Newshour on SBS in Australia)
Here is what I said:
While of course we see the Newshour on SBS in Australia you may not be interested in an Australian opinion, but I’ll give it anyway. By now however from myself and others you will have a list of some dozens of sceptical real scientists working on the Global Warming issue that you can call on for future programs.
If nothing else the storm in your mailbox shows there are TWO sides to this story, currently about 53% of Australians do not support global warming action and the sceptical ranks are growing fast.
I would urge PBS to take away from this that a controversy rages, there is scientific debate, there is social debate, and there is political debate – No issue in my recallection has divided society so much. It is PBS’s duty to report both sides of that controversy. The issue is not settled by the number of scientists who believe – it is settled on the facts of the matter and these remain contentious.
In Australia global warming policy has brought down several state and federal governments – This one issue is also about to bring down our inept, and corruption ridden federal government next year because of the lie “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” uttered by our now infamous Prime Minister. It took out the Victorian government, and brought down the NSW and QLD progressive governments in landslides. In Queensland – an unprecedented defeat, the progressives were reduced to the point they could hold caucus in a minibus with room to spare
This is the magnitude of the debate and the sceptics are winning, it deserves to be reported, don’t hide from it – report it
Sorry Mods, I now return you to your regular program
Apart from those who become abusive when one disagrees with the consensus view.
Perfect!
This is a valuable “quotable quote”, not just for the week but for some time to come, I think.
I like that. I wish I had thought of it.
I predict that the consensus on WUWT will be to agree with that remark. The major difference being that it will remain to be true at the individual level.
“To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.”
Margaret Thatcher
I rather prefer to “break it down” by looking at each part of the word. (Euphemistically, of course.)
Con = being against
sense = facts
us = inclusive group
Therefore, a consensus is those that are against facts.
“Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.”
Margaret Thatcher
“Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heavens as its center, would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.”
Nicolaus Copernicus
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
Michael Crichton
“Indeed, scientific truth by consensus has had a uniformly bad history.”
David Douglass (American Physicist)
My quote of the week contribution:
“The love of theory is the root of all evil.” – William M. Briggs
John Ratcliffe says:
September 29, 2012 at 5:23 am
I predict that the consensus on WUWT will be to agree with that remark. The major difference being that it will remain to be true at the individual level.
Exception to every rule.
Consensus means not having to think for one’s self. Going with the flow….not having to argue with the loudest in the room. ‘Oh, OK – whatever….’
It takes confidence and determination to move groups off of consensus points or dogma. It aint easy. And kudos to Anthony for supplying this great platform so we can see how it is done.
In the context of science, the late Michael Crichton said that when scientists say “the consensus is …”, it means they simply don’t know.
Pointman
That’s a keeper.
If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn’t thinking. – George S. Patton
My version is; “The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades only as common sense.” Two of the million monkeys typing the same is “consensus”. When they whisper conspiratorialy, as does the media, then we have consensus in science journalism.
Remember the consensus view was germs did not cause infections.