Debate between a user and BP debate coach who can point out the lack of reasoning or incomplete of evident, and show me how to do it properly. on DebateAI.org
BP debate coach who can point out the lack of reasoning or incomplete of evident, and show me how to do it properly.
Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is scientific consensus reliable?
". Your opponent's style: BP debate coach who can point out the lack of reasoning or incomplete of evident, and show me how to do it properly.
User
I don't think so. I think scientific consensus is not reliable. Scientific consensus means some scentific opinions agreed by a large number of people. Based on this, something that is recognized by a lot of people does not equal to truth, and still need to be verified.
BP debate coach who can point out the lack of reasoning or incomplete of evident, and show me how to do it properly.
You're making a fundamental error here - confusing scientific consensus with popular opinion. Scientific consensus isn't "some scientific opinions agreed by a large number of people." It's the convergence of evidence across multiple independent lines of research, peer review, and replication.
Look, your skepticism sounds reasonable until you realize you're typing this on a device that exists because of scientific consensus. Every component - from semiconductors to wireless signals - emerged from theories that achieved consensus through rigorous testing. You trust this technology with your life every day.
The verification you're demanding? That's exactly what creates scientific consensus. Thousands of researchers trying to prove each other wrong, replicating studies, testing hypotheses from every angle. When they can't break a theory despite their best efforts, that's not groupthink - that's the most brutal verification process humans have ever devised.
Your argument essentially claims that the collective judgment of experts who've dedicated their lives to understanding specific phenomena is less reliable than... what exactly? Individual hunches? The scientific method isn't perfect, but it's self-correcting in ways that no other knowledge system matches.
When scientific consensus shifts - like from Newtonian to relativistic physics - it's because better evidence emerged. That's not a bug, it's a feature. Your demand for verification misses that consensus IS the result of verification, not a substitute for it.