“A majority of scientists agree” is a common argument used for defending a controversial position. History demonstrates over and over again that this is often not a valid proof of objectivity. Virtually every major breakthrough in science has been at odds with the prevailing consensus of contempory scientists. The scientific community is as narrow minded and prone to misconceptions as any other special interest group. Scientific associations are basically narcissistic; limiting their exposure to the research and publications of their members. Consequently acceptance by associates is the key to obtaining research funding, which in turn leads to the support of the prevailing institutional bias. Because alternative research is not normally funded the accumulated data always seems to support the conventional view.
Opinion surveys of “scientists” are often skewed by a biased selection process: only asking and recording of the opinions of scientists who agree with the premise despite their credentials. In other words the opinions of generic “scientists” are no more valid than those of the general public unless they have specific expertise in the area being examined.
For example the consensus of contemporary scientists proved to be wrong:
- Historically scientists believed that earth was the center of the universe.
- Virtually all scientists believed that mater and energy are separate and immutable.
- Nutritional scientists and doctors preached for years that fat foods cause heart disease.
- Most neuroscientists believe the mind is epiphenomena of the material brain.
The bottom line is: “Scientists agree that” is a smoke screen used by those who do have the technical background and factual details needed to substantiate their opinion. Opinions are improvable subjective perceptions as opposed to objective facts, no mater whose opinion it is.