The point that he makes is that consensus is an invalid test of a scientific hypothesis. Unless the hypothesis actually predicts the results of a physically observable quantity with statistical significance, it simply can't be said to be correct. He backed that up with numerous examples of consensus on hypotheses that didn't predict observables and the shunning of those who proposed alternate hypotheses that did.
The further point that he makes is that in many cases, these travesties of science end up misinforming public policy with tremendous cost in terms of dollars and/or lives.
Crichton does spend a few paragraphs on the 'scientific consensus' argument. It is not even close to the bulk of his essay; it is a small aside buried in the middle.
Unfortunately, in that part, he commits the logical fallacy of concluding that
all scientific consensus is bad because it has occasionally been wrong in the past. He fails to make the distinction between consensus based upon hard results, i.e., consensus based upon the repeated application of the scientific process itself, and consensus based upon speculation and prejudice.
And Crichton only brings up
one case of science supposedly misinforming public policy. But, based on his own words, it appears to be nothing of the sort. And nowhere does he indicate what the cost in dollars or lives was, if any, so that cannot be his point.
Even assuming his version of those events is accurate (and based on misleading statements by him elsewhere in the article, I am not inclined to trust his version), the incident he refers to, regarding the EPA and second-hand smoke, is an example of bad actions by government policy-making officials, not bad science. Yet he jumps to the conclusion that "this was openly fradulent science".
His further complaints about second-hand smoke are about how individual advocacy groups and the media have supposedly overhyped this risk and have nothing to do with science and the scientific community whatsoever. His implication that scientists are at fault for the actions of advocacy groups, the media, and the government is preposterous. And also note that Crichton then uses a scientific consensus argument to claim that second-hand smoke is not a health risk. Maybe this is true, maybe not (I certainly am not going to trust Crichton), but it is rather hypocritical coming from Crichton so soon after he railed against using such arguments.
Crichton might be a terrible author, but at least he knows the difference between science and religion.
As the party of the smart people, I would expect more people on this board to be able to make that distinction too.
Nice sound bite there, but it is meaningless in this context. Crichton's article is not about science and religion, and the original post in this thread is not about science and religion. This is about good science and bad, politically-distorted, science.
--Peter