The feature on Harry Collins (“Authoritative testimony”, 9 March) says: “Building on the role of government scientific advisers, Collins and [Robert] Evans propose a detailed set of mechanisms for communicating the scientific consensus – and the strength of that consensus – to policymakers.”
In my opinion, anyone who uses the term “scientific consensus” immediately disqualifies themselves from being taken seriously. Consensus does not matter at all to science. All that matters is how well a hypothesis accounts for observations. If 99 or even 999 “scientists” believe that some hypothesis is correct and just a single scientist presents a hypothesis that better accounts for the observations, there is no question in science who is correct.
As for scientists giving their opinions to policymakers, that’s a dangerous path. Pretty soon you have scientists distorting their work in order to align it to the views of policymakers in an effort to garner more funding.
JohnDM
Via timeshighereducation.com
<网曝门>Send to
Letters should be sent to:?THE.Letters@tesglobal.com
Letters for publication in?Times Higher Education?should arrive by 9am Monday.
View terms and conditions.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？