This show begins a series that will examine the concept of scientific consensus and contrast it with voices of the dissenters who find value in minority scientific opinions, theories and conclusions. It will also ask the question: is there any way to bridge the gap? Darrell Becker will be co-hosting all episodes in this series. Introduction: -Clarification of goals and definitions -A healthy distrust of Academia -Understand how science can be politicized, both ways -Frustration with skeptics Discussion: -People are all coming to eventually form various conclusions based on personal and secondary/tertiary supportive evidence (including appeals to various authorities). Some folks seem to consider that there are verified opinions formed amongst a scientific majority (often erroneously called the "scientific consensus"). -These theories and opinions are widely publicized in scientific periodicals which are widely used and distributed by the scientific academic communities in universities, those researchers who are beneficiaries of research grant funds, and are taught in such educational facilities and other venues -Others have developed a healthy skepticism regarding the scientific majority opinions on a wide variety of topics. It seems that many of us "dissenters" prefer to have dissenting opinions (academically and tangibly) from some (but not all) of those conclusions held by the widely-published scientific majority -Will some of us be dissenters forever? -As dissenters to the majority opinion of widely-publicized scientists, many of us notice that many people who take the majority opinion can get very emotional when hearing criticism of the majority conclusion which was taught […]
↧