[WikiEN-l] Mainstream of science

The Cunctator wrote: The question is: What is "mainstream science"? 1. Money Is it determined by where the bulk of the money is spent on research? If so, then all we have to do is find out which hypotheses and/or conclusions are winning the most research grants, and so on. For argument's sake, let us grant that the environmentalist positions on the (A) "CFCs cause deadly cancer" issue and the (B) "carbon dioxide heats up the air too much" issue are getting $5 billion per year. Further, let us suppose that the contrary positions are getting less than 5% of that, say, $200 million. This would mean that mainstream science supports the environmentalist positions on the (A) and (B) issues. 2. Journal Articles Is mainstream science defined by what the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals say? Then all we have to do is review those articles, or for those not familiar with the language of science, maybe just the article "abstracts" (the summary at the beginning of the text). If the overwhelming majority of these articles report that their research supports the environmentalist positions on the (A) and (B) issues, then our Wikipedia articles should say so. And if our "Wikipedia definition" of "mainstream science" is "whatever the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals say", then we can say: * The viewpoint of [[mainstream science]] is that the [[global warming]] theory is true. However, the link to "mainstream science" should provide either the money definition given above, or the journal article count one. I for one would trust someone like William Connolley to tell me what the journal articles say, and perhaps we could cite Sheldon Rampton as a source for where what views the bulk of the research funds is supporting. Ed Poor