[WikiEN-l] Re: Mainstream of science

[Sheldon Rampton]

Ed Poor wrote:

>The question is: What is "mainstream science"?
>
>1. Money

[SNIP]

>2. Journal Articles

Money and journal articles both correlate positively with mainstream 
science, but journal articles are a better indicator. If a particular 
idea isn't being published at all in the peer-reviewed journals (as 
is the case with so-called "creation science"), that's a clear 
indication that the idea falls outside mainstream science.

Of course, someone has to _interpret_ those journal articles. 
Scientists speak a specialized language, so explaining what the 
articles mean may require some translation for lay people. Moreover, 
not all scientific papers are equal in significance. For example, a 
short-duration health study involving a small number of people is 
considered less significant than a long-term study with a large 
sample size. Scientific expertise is obviously helpful in assessing 
how much weight each piece of published research deserves within the 
larger body of research on a given topic.

One common mechanism used by scientists for this purpose is a 
"consensus panel" or "consensus conference," which convenes when 
expert opinion has converged on a single answer to a previously 
controversial question.  The panel's job is to officially state the 
consensus so it can be gotten out to the less-expert. The experts are 
selected from among the leading researchers in the field, chosen to 
reflect the range of viewpoints that exist in that field. They hold a 
series of meetings, discuss the relevant published scientific 
research on the topic at hand, and put together a report. 
Occasionally a panel will be convened when opinion has not completely 
converged on all aspects of a question. In this case the panel's job 
is to see what everyone can genuinely agree on and what sorts of 
hedge statements are acceptable for the rest. Once in a while there 
will be an agreement to disagree in certain areas, and if so, 
typically the majority view is published accompanied by an appendix 
detailing the dissenters' positions.

In the United States, the National Research Council (the working arm 
of the National Academy of Sciences) is the body that generally 
convenes consensus panels for the purpose of provide expert reports 
to policymakers. Many of its reports are published e-books, which 
anyone can read online (or download in their entirety, sometimes for 
a fee). If you'd like to see a fairly typical example, here's one 
that they did in 2002 that looks at the impact of automobile fuel 
economy standards on motor vehicle safety:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10172.html

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is basically an 
extremely large consensus panel (with some 2,000 participants). Their 
published reports (along with similar reports that have been 
published by smaller scientific panels) are the basis for saying that 
there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming. That's term 
"consensus" is absolutely, if it is understood to mean that consensus 
panels have convened and published their conclusions. However, Ed may 
be interested in looking closely at specifically _what_ the IPCC 
reached by way of a consensus. Here are a couple of examples that I 
posted here previously, taken from their latest report:

>In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining 
>uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years 
>is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas 
>concentrations.

>Emissions of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning are virtually certain to 
>be the dominant influence on the trends in atmospheric CO2 
>concentration during the 21st century.

Although these are "consensus" statements, they do acknowledge 
uncertainty. The IPCC uses the term "likely" to mean that the 
probability is higher than 66%. The term "virtually certain" means 
99% or higher. This means that the IPCC thinks there is a possibility 
(of 33% or less) that the observed warming over the last 50 years is 
due to some cause _other_ than greenhouse gas concentrations. In 
science, there are no "certainties," only probabilities. Even 
commonplace scientific "facts" such as Einstein's theory of 
relativity are regarded as theories. Even though the likelihood of 
its being false is vanishingly small, science can't entirely rule out 
that possibility. (Absolute truths only exist in religious dogma and 
other faith-based belief systems. They have no place in science.)

If Ed wants to ensure that the uncertainties related to global 
climate research are adequately reflected in the global warming 
article, I think the best way to do this would be to accept the 
IPCC's standing as a consensus body, and write the article so that it 
reflects the degrees of uncertainty actually stated in the IPCC's own 
report. This would be more productive, more accurate, and more likely 
to lead to consensus under Wikipedia's NPOV rule than trying to 
juxtapose the IPCC against Fred Singer's op-ed pieces for the 
Washington Times.
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------