> You are talking about what makes good science when evaluated by a person skilled in that particular art the parent poster is talking about how groups of people discover increasingly true pictures of the world.
No, I am talking about how groups of people discover increasingly true pictures of the world. They don't do that by consensus; they do it by finding models that make more and more accurate predictions, as shown by the actual track record of accurate predictions.
> When you want to improve your model of the world by including some heretofore unknown to you concept,fact, or set of facts you can opt to learn everything from the ground up in order to develop a deep understanding of the topic or accept or slot in some preexisting truths and models as described by others that you presume to be true.
Or, instead of making any assumptions, you can look at the actual predictive track record to see which "preexisting truths or models" actually work and which don't.
The reason this isn't obvious to most people is that most people don't stop to think about how much of their everyday experience, particularly in this age of computers and GPS and other technological marvels, actually gives them a huge track record of accurate predictions for our fundamental scientific theories. If our predictions based on models using General Relativity were not accurate, GPS wouldn't work. If our predictions based on models using quantum mechanics were not accurate, computers wouldn't work. There are countless other examples. Most people don't stop to think about this so they don't realize how high the bar actually is for having a track record of accurate predictions. They think of GR and QM as esoteric physics, not as everyday realities. They don't realize how huge a volume of evidence from their direct experience they already have for these theories being correct, so they think they have to take physicists' word for it, when they actually don't. Which means they also don't realize how much other people, who seem to be just as sure of themselves and their predictions as physicists (if not more so), actually are just overstating their case, often by many, many orders of magnitude.
So I reject your model of how people should actually assess claims in areas where they don't have expertise.
> When people say that the scientific consensus is that cigarettes cause cancer they mean I haven't fully examined the complexity of the human lung and the effects of carcinogens on same but I accept the fact that many experts have done so and are telling me that If I keep smoking I'm more likely to die of cancer.
When people assess the probability that if they smoke they will increase their risk of dying of cancer, they have no need to rely on any "consensus". They can just look at the data.
No, I am talking about how groups of people discover increasingly true pictures of the world. They don't do that by consensus; they do it by finding models that make more and more accurate predictions, as shown by the actual track record of accurate predictions.
> When you want to improve your model of the world by including some heretofore unknown to you concept,fact, or set of facts you can opt to learn everything from the ground up in order to develop a deep understanding of the topic or accept or slot in some preexisting truths and models as described by others that you presume to be true.
Or, instead of making any assumptions, you can look at the actual predictive track record to see which "preexisting truths or models" actually work and which don't.
The reason this isn't obvious to most people is that most people don't stop to think about how much of their everyday experience, particularly in this age of computers and GPS and other technological marvels, actually gives them a huge track record of accurate predictions for our fundamental scientific theories. If our predictions based on models using General Relativity were not accurate, GPS wouldn't work. If our predictions based on models using quantum mechanics were not accurate, computers wouldn't work. There are countless other examples. Most people don't stop to think about this so they don't realize how high the bar actually is for having a track record of accurate predictions. They think of GR and QM as esoteric physics, not as everyday realities. They don't realize how huge a volume of evidence from their direct experience they already have for these theories being correct, so they think they have to take physicists' word for it, when they actually don't. Which means they also don't realize how much other people, who seem to be just as sure of themselves and their predictions as physicists (if not more so), actually are just overstating their case, often by many, many orders of magnitude.
So I reject your model of how people should actually assess claims in areas where they don't have expertise.
> When people say that the scientific consensus is that cigarettes cause cancer they mean I haven't fully examined the complexity of the human lung and the effects of carcinogens on same but I accept the fact that many experts have done so and are telling me that If I keep smoking I'm more likely to die of cancer.
When people assess the probability that if they smoke they will increase their risk of dying of cancer, they have no need to rely on any "consensus". They can just look at the data.