Archived version: https://archive.ph/WMU7k

Sometimes, a scientific consensus is established because vested interests have diligently and purposefully transformed a situation of profound uncertainty into one in which there appears to be overwhelming evidence for what becomes the consensus view. When a scientific consensus emerges via this accelerated process, the role of the scientific dissident is not, like Semmelweis, to carry out revolutionary science. The dissident’s role is to provide a check against epistemically detrimental and artificial consensus formation. Nevertheless, the challenges faced are similar. Never has this accelerated process unfolded with such success, and such fury, as in the case of the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

I should point out this is not my stance. However, I thought this article is a good stimulus to initiate discussion: while questioning scientific practices has led to some significant improvements despite heavy criticism at the time, how do we today justify dismissing unpopular/uncomfortable ideas while continuing to make scientific progress?

EDIT: I should point out this is not my stance. However, I thought this article is a good stimulus to initiate discussion: while questioning scientific practices has led to some significant improvements despite heavy criticism at the time, how do we today justify dismissing unpopular/uncomfortable ideas while continuing to make scientific progress?

  • purahna
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    for anyone going straight to the comments after seeing how long it is, this is a Wuhan lab leak crazy, feel free to dismiss it

    • soyagi@yiffit.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I should have commented in the post that it is not my view and is supposed to initiate discussion. I’ve edited the original post with the following question:

      While questioning scientific practices has led to some significant improvements despite heavy criticism at the time, how do we today justify dismissing unpopular/uncomfortable ideas while continuing to make scientific progress?