Michael Crichton a scientist and famous author. Here is what he says about scientific consensus:

“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Love your work, pjb 

IQSRLOW wrote on Oct 19^th, 2007 at 11:40pm:


Me either, if they are put in place to mitigate a specified threat, designed with proper consultation of all interested parties and have measurable outcomes by which their sucess (or otherwise) can be judged.