Very interesting discussion of this topic over at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
It includes these statements: 'The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability>), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals.' 'Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis ...' Not sure what the good Deacon is referring to, but it seems that it is accepted that “absolute truth” is in many cases not possible to determine, and the consensus of science is relied up (for instance, related to evolution climate change, etc.). It also seems that scientists are pretty clear on the difference between “truth” and “consensus." --Eric Norris campyonly...@me.com www.campyonly.com campyonlyguy.blogspot.com > On Jun 23, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Deacon Patrick <lamontg...@mac.com> wrote: > > claiming scientific truth by consensus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
