angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
Not every scientific body agrees on this. There have been studies, in fact, that have found the opinions differ quite a bit more than people think based on definitions, classifications, and so on. Come to think of it, has anyone actually seen this consensus people keep talking about? What are the numbers? We only hear people say there is a consensus, but there is never any confirmation that one actually exists.
Yes, there is a consensus about both GMOs and climate change.
Maybe you don't understand what consensus means. Just because DonnaY's cranks think GMO vaccines are going to turn us all into lizard people with short life spans does not mean there is not a scientific consensus about vaccines.
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked, there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.
The person that can prove them all wrong will likely be the person who gets remembered in history.