Archived version: https://archive.ph/WMU7k
Sometimes, a scientific consensus is established because vested interests have diligently and purposefully transformed a situation of profound uncertainty into one in which there appears to be overwhelming evidence for what becomes the consensus view. When a scientific consensus emerges via this accelerated process, the role of the scientific dissident is not, like Semmelweis, to carry out revolutionary science. The dissident’s role is to provide a check against epistemically detrimental and artificial consensus formation. Nevertheless, the challenges faced are similar. Never has this accelerated process unfolded with such success, and such fury, as in the case of the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
EDIT: I should point out this is not my stance. However, I thought this article is a good stimulus to initiate discussion: while questioning scientific practices has led to some significant improvements despite heavy criticism at the time, how do we today justify dismissing unpopular/uncomfortable ideas while continuing to make scientific progress?
You must log in or register to comment.
Everyone is welcome to attack the consensus. You just need to be backed up by very strong evidence. That’s all.
The reason people today dismiss “dissidents” is not out of a politically correctness deciding what is acceptable and what is not, but because most dissidents are nothing more than populists, getting known out of a “buzz” and not out of any actual proof of anything. You might call them “scientific dissidents” but they’re nothing more than scammers or sect gurus, as the proper scientists that actually rely on proof do not need to go on TV shows or social media to convince the crowd. There are still some bad behaviour inside science, but most of those are never reaching the public. As long as it doesn’t reach a TV set, it is basically invisible, and the ones that reach them are rarely worth considering.