> An important note: when there is a strong scientific consensus,...
· Comment — Spencer Greenberg's post · View on Facebook · Markdown source
> An important note: when there is a strong scientific consensus, that is usually a strong starting point for beliefs on topics you know little about (e.g., in physics or biology) even though the consensus is not always right. Doesn't that depend on the quality of the consensus making process? Imagine the vetting process has been captured/corrupted by an ideological, biased orthodoxy that systematically defunds, fires, or suppresses the work of anyone who challenges the orthodoxy (regardless of the quality of the work). Wouldn't that argue _against_ accepting the "scientific" consensus?