Consensus and Politics
Science is not conducted by committees, and voting is not a mechanism scientists use to discover new things. Science is actually an antidemocratic institution. The opinion of the majority does not matter. What matters is experimentation and logical reasoning. So a consensus may only be related to politics – not to the practice of science. Accordingly, many have noted that politicians, not scientists, are the ones most interested in establishing a consensus.
The scientist Richard S. Lindzen wrote:
Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as ‘global warming’ would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to ‘global warming,’ any scientist’s agreement will do. The answer almost certainly lies in politics.
The link between global warming and politics becomes even more apparent when we note that the person most often associated with global warming is Al Gore, a politician (compare, for example, with these two pairs: the theory of relativity–Einstein, the theory of evolution–Darwin). According to the Wikipedia entry on Al Gore (viewed on 10/05/2008):
Al Gore was elected with 28 years of age and was involved in America politics for over three decades, serving first in the U.S. House Of Representatives (1977-85) and later in the U.S. Senate (1985-93) (representing Tennessee) before becoming vice president. Gore was the Democratic nominee for president in the presidential election (...) Gore is the recipient of a number of awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize (...) He won too a Primetime Emmy Award for Current TV (2007), a Webby Award (2005) and a Academy Award (2007). He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.
It is noteworthy that in the realm of politics there is a strong tendency for consensus to be formed only among the worst elements of society. The reasons for such were put forward by the economist Friedrich A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom. The following passage contains the core of his argument:
In the first instance, it is probably true that, in general, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and the less likely they are to agree on a particular hierarchy of values. It is a corollary of this that if we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and “common” instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards. It merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards (...) Here comes in the second negative principle of selection: [a political dictator] will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently (…) It is in connection with the deliberate effort of the skilful demagogue to weld together a closely coherent and homogeneous body of supporters that the third and perhaps most important negative element of selection enters. It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program – on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off-than on any positive task. The contrast between the “we” and the “they”, the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses (…)
Defining Consensus
