Rick Monteverde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sure Jed doesn't care how many think > CF is bunk, in terms that situation having any bearing on the nature of the > evidence or the conclusions he has come to regarding the evidence. They can > all be wrong, and in the case of CF we're pretty certain they are, so > there's your proof that a consensus does not necessarily mean much.
I disagree. Scientific consensus is meaningful and important. BUT you have to define it carefully. It has to be a legitimate consensus among scientists who have the right to an opinion: A real consensus: members have relevant qualifications, have done the research (or something very similar), and have read other people's papers. They are reasonably objective and open minded, and willing to entertain alternative hypotheses. In the case of CF, 99.9% of the group is certain the effect is real (everyone except Britz), and I expect 99% are sure it is a surface effect. You should pay close attention to that consensus, and not dismiss it without very good reasons. A fake consensus: people on Wikipedia claim they are scientists in various fields unrelated to cold fusion have strong opinions and loads of facts that they made up on the spur of the moment. They have read nothing and understand nothing about the research. Being a "scientist" doesn't count if you have not done your homework, or if you make up facts as you go along. You can ignore this crowd. A person who knows a thing or two about computer modeling and recursive models may have an informed opinion about global warming models. That opinion should be respected, but only so far. It should not be given the same level of respect and attention we give to people who have made computer models about climate and also physics models, and who have in-depth knowledge, and data, and years of work in the field. When that person categorically dismisses the consensus of the real experts, I say he has overstepped the bounds, and overstated his qualifications. At best he can express doubts or question the results. If you want to go further you have to write a paper and get it past peer-review, assuming that peer-review in the field in question is reasonably fair and objective. (We all know that it is not, in some fields.) Of course you can always find a legit experts who disagrees. We have Britz. Heck, there are probably real, accredited, professional biologists who believe in creationism (and by the way, I don't want to hear about them if there are), but the consensus of opinion is that Darwin's theory is correct, and that consensus was carefully and thoughtfully arrived at. To give a relevant example, I know a good deal about data collection and consumer applications with lots of small transactions, such as grocery store scanners. I used to write code and documentation for that sort of thing at NCR, back when they were first invented. Plus, DeKalb County GA trained me on the Georgia voting machine operations, so I know how they work. I spent a day working at a poll watching the machines work, and not work -- malfunction and lose track of at least three votes. Plus I read some fairly detailed technical reports on the problems with these machines written by experts at Johns Hopkins. I know more than enough about operating systems, apps and computer security to understand these papers. So, I am well qualified to have an opinion about the reliability and wisdom of using these machines. But, you would not want to call me to testify before Congress on this subject, or to make recommendations to the County. You would want to call the profs. at Johns Hopkins. There is a huge difference between my level of knowledge and theirs, and if we disagree I should probably defer to their judgment. The consensus of informed opinion about these machines is that they are riddled with errors and design faults and should not be used. I am sure you can find legitimate, sincere computer experts who disagree and who say the possibility of vote fraud is overblown. They may not be on the payroll of the vendor. But if you are a politician or County computer expert assigned to dealing with these machines, you should definitely go along with the consensus, and get rid of the damn machines as soon as possible. - Jed
