Science and Politics

Recently, a group of Nobel-prize winning scientists endorsed John Kerry, saying in part: "And by ignoring scientific consensus on critical issues such as global warming, they [Bush administration] are threatening the earth's future." As David Douglass points out, their statement goes completely against the nature and purpose of science.

To arrive at such a conclusion these scientists are either knowledgeable about the science of global warming or they are relying on a "consensus." Most of these scientists do not work in climatology and cannot have first hand knowledge of this field. As a physicist, I can state that none of the 18 physicists who signed the Statement works in this field; nor to my knowledge has ever published a paper on this subject. It must be concluded that they have relied on what they have read about a "consensus".

Whether the above quote is true or not, I conclude that they have forgotten or ignored one of the most important premises in science: Scientific knowledge comes from observations and not from consensus.

Indeed, scientific truth by consensus has had a uniformly bad history.