Comments on: On the Political Relevance of Scientific Consensus http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4298 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Indur Goklany http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4298&cpage=1#comment-9299 Indur Goklany Sun, 23 Dec 2007 04:08:50 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4298#comment-9299 Amendment to above post. It would have been more appropriate to have said: "Therefore, while as both a policy analyst and scientist, Roger, you may CORRECTLY scoff at the relevance of consensus in a scientific matter, policy makers will usually err on the side of where they perceive consensus to lie." [See 1st sentence last para.] My apologies for the omission. And welcome back to blogging. Amendment to above post.

It would have been more appropriate to have said: “Therefore, while as both a policy analyst and scientist, Roger, you may CORRECTLY scoff at the relevance of consensus in a scientific matter, policy makers will usually err on the side of where they perceive consensus to lie.” [See 1st sentence last para.]

My apologies for the omission. And welcome back to blogging.

]]> By: Indur Goklany http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4298&cpage=1#comment-9298 Indur Goklany Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:00:19 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4298#comment-9298 In democracies, the habits of democracy make it almost inevitable that consensus (or rather the perception of consensus) -- right or wrong -- will, I believe, rule virtually any dispute. There is also safety in numbers (particularly for politicians who, after all, make our policies and who are adept at counting heads -- and votes). This also holds in non-democracies, BTW. [I recall when I was a kid one of the arguments for the existence of God was that "40 million Frenchmen couldn't possibly be wrong" -- no kidding! (But now I date myself. Today there are over 60 million Frenchmen, many of whom may not believe in the existence of God).] This recognition of the importance of consensus to policy makers is also why protagonists in many a policy argument will, and do, claim -- or would like to create the perception -- that consensus favors their specific claims. [This is also why numerous polls are conducted with slanted questions designed to elicit skewed responses.] Therefore, while as both a policy analyst and scientist, Roger, you may scoff at the relevance of consensus in a scientific matter, policy makers will usually err on the side of where they perceive consensus to lie. And I suspect they would do that even if they knew the consensus to be wrong! In democracies, the habits of democracy make it almost inevitable that consensus (or rather the perception of consensus) — right or wrong — will, I believe, rule virtually any dispute. There is also safety in numbers (particularly for politicians who, after all, make our policies and who are adept at counting heads — and votes). This also holds in non-democracies, BTW. [I recall when I was a kid one of the arguments for the existence of God was that "40 million Frenchmen couldn't possibly be wrong" -- no kidding! (But now I date myself. Today there are over 60 million Frenchmen, many of whom may not believe in the existence of God).]

This recognition of the importance of consensus to policy makers is also why protagonists in many a policy argument will, and do, claim — or would like to create the perception — that consensus favors their specific claims. [This is also why numerous polls are conducted with slanted questions designed to elicit skewed responses.]

Therefore, while as both a policy analyst and scientist, Roger, you may scoff at the relevance of consensus in a scientific matter, policy makers will usually err on the side of where they perceive consensus to lie. And I suspect they would do that even if they knew the consensus to be wrong!

]]> By: David B. Benson http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4298&cpage=1#comment-9297 David B. Benson Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:23:56 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4298#comment-9297 Here is (an attempt at) a link to a lively opinion piece regarding Inhofe and his '400': http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/22/73147/008 Here is (an attempt at) a link to a lively opinion piece regarding Inhofe and his ‘400′:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/22/73147/008

]]> By: legion http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4298&cpage=1#comment-9296 legion Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:05:19 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4298#comment-9296 Unfortunately, politicians and bureaucratic policy-makers pay very close attention to consensus. Not only scientific consensus but consensus beliefs of campaign donors, policy advisers, and the general public. Why do you think the opinion polling business is so huge? Because it controls many billions of dollars of spending, via political decision making. "So what?" is not a good enough response to the publication of a contra-consensus consensus. Rather, the existence of such a ccc should suggest that the debate is ongoing, and not closed as journalists and uninformed bloggers tend so loudly claim. Unfortunately, politicians and bureaucratic policy-makers pay very close attention to consensus. Not only scientific consensus but consensus beliefs of campaign donors, policy advisers, and the general public.

Why do you think the opinion polling business is so huge? Because it controls many billions of dollars of spending, via political decision making.

“So what?” is not a good enough response to the publication of a contra-consensus consensus. Rather, the existence of such a ccc should suggest that the debate is ongoing, and not closed as journalists and uninformed bloggers tend so loudly claim.

]]>