> it's less probable that a bunch of those people are
> all in on it together. The larger the consensus, the
> easier it is to trust.
No. It's in consensus that big lies get their best cover. History is awash with big lies hiding in consensus. Slavery is ok. Aristotlean theory of elements. Female inferiority. Divine right of kings. White man's burden. Inevitability of the technocrats. House prices always go up. Object oriented programming will solve all our problems. Anything to do with eating habits - salt, cholesterol, etc.
My favourite is bloodletting. Everyone thought it was true, for thousands of years. If you'd argued against it people would have thought you were crazy. And we now know that it's rubbish. All those well-educated men of all those centuries were todies who didn't have a clue what they were doing. (Or - who knew exactly what they were doing - getting the good patronage and the good women)
Climage change is fun. It's easy to follow the money on - it's just the latest mysticism of 'educated people'. The rebranding thing from "global warming" is pure weasel.
There's a lot of sense in looking at the consensus opinion as a starting point. And you should be wary of going against consensus - it's easy to get burnt by its momentum, people will treat you as a crank, your counter theories may be wrong also. And - it's easy to excuse your actions if you go with consensus and it turns out to be wrong later. But its status as consensus should give it no actual credibility in your mind.
Yes. The key thing I was (attempting to) respond to was the idea that consensus is a good indication of truth. My final sentence overstated things: we all all forced to piece together a worldview with slabs taken from consensus, but it's something to be concerned about, not celebrated. It's much easier to get duped by consensus than a single voice that's smarter than you.
My favourite is bloodletting. Everyone thought it was true, for thousands of years. If you'd argued against it people would have thought you were crazy. And we now know that it's rubbish. All those well-educated men of all those centuries were todies who didn't have a clue what they were doing. (Or - who knew exactly what they were doing - getting the good patronage and the good women)
Climage change is fun. It's easy to follow the money on - it's just the latest mysticism of 'educated people'. The rebranding thing from "global warming" is pure weasel.
There's a lot of sense in looking at the consensus opinion as a starting point. And you should be wary of going against consensus - it's easy to get burnt by its momentum, people will treat you as a crank, your counter theories may be wrong also. And - it's easy to excuse your actions if you go with consensus and it turns out to be wrong later. But its status as consensus should give it no actual credibility in your mind.