For something as (relatively) easy to predict as asteroid trajectories, I would be very curious why the 1% disagree, or whether it really is 99% given that exact phrasing with no qualifications. It invites scrutiny, but also invites not being certain either way (though I would err on the side of that large a majority even if I'm not certain). I posted this quote by Bertrand Russell almost a month ago, it's worth a repost: "(1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."
It's a good quote, but it is based on the premise that all the experts are equally qualified and have no conflict of interest. I am not convinced that is the case, which means we all have to find our own way. Hence all the discussion, I guess :)
I thought of disputing the "scientists and astronomers" bit in the parent (what do botanists generally know of orbital dynamics that make them any more qualified to comment than anyone else who took a few physics courses in high school / college?), it should really be restricted to domain-relevant experts which would then make it easier to take the claim that they're all more or less equally qualified. You're right there are lots of incentives in play that don't always make finding the truth the best course of action for either an expert or a so-called expert. As a layman on the subject I don't have much to contribute on the topic and would rather study other things. Though when I see the occasional chart (as the paper you linked above has) and notice that, while not "wildly incorrect", predictions have generally been "incorrect" over the last 15 years, or when I notice a shift or new emphasis in narrative, I end up feeling justified in my suspicions on the epistemic virtues (let alone the actual claims argued for being true or false) of the relevant experts. It's like, seeing all the issues with replication and so on in Psychology, how can you not help but feel like the entire field would be better off starting from scratch with rigorous methods?
