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.
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to 罢贬贰’蝉 university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?