Consensus Science


In a democracy you can vote without needing to give reasons.


In science you have to give reasons or you aren't allowed to vote.



Let me explain that.

Suppose that I discover by experiment that splomks are vlatikers.  My proof is that by coating a lens with praktonite I ensure that every time I examine a splomk with my lens it sure enough looks like a vlatiker.

Scientists across the world rush to replicate my experiment.  Sure enough: a majority of them report that splomks are indeed vlatikers.  We have a consensus.

A few experiments fail to replicate my results.  This is put down to experimental error.

We still have a consensus.

Many years pass.  A few scientists suspect that splomks are nothing like vlatikers, but they dare not say such a thing in public.

One day, experimenters in another field discover that praktonite has the peculiar property of becoming bidifloxing at exactly room temperature.  At any other temperature it is tridifloxing.

That explains everything.  Scientists across the world retest their results and find that splomks are not vlatikers after all.

We have a new consensus.

But remember: nobody is allowed to express an opinion on whether or not a splomk is a vlatiker unless they have done the experiments.

Science may be a finding of fact by consensus, but it isn't a democracy. 

Science demands a consensus because things like splomsks and vlatikers are far too important to mankind to be left to the whims of the democratic process.