| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| essays:ambiguity_truth [30.09.25, 11:46:08] – [3. Social consensus] sascha | essays:ambiguity_truth [30.09.25, 13:30:18] (current) – [Hierarchy of truth definitions] sascha |
|---|
| Instead of establishing a //general// hierarchy of truth definitions, it makes more sense to choose the most appropriate definition for each //specific// context and – this is the important part: to also make this transparent! | Instead of establishing a //general// hierarchy of truth definitions, it makes more sense to choose the most appropriate definition for each //specific// context and – this is the important part: to also make this transparent! |
| |
| | ==== Example: “Scientific consensus” ==== |
| | |
| | One type of argument that crops up time and again in public discourse on a variety of topics is that a “[[wp>Scientific consensus|scientific consensus]]” exists on a particular issue. This means that the vast majority of experts (or scientists) who deal with a topic hold a certain position, which thus represents the current //state of science//. |
| | |
| | Examples of such topics of discussion include [[wp>Scientific consensus on climate change|climate change]], a range of issues surrounding the classification and treatment of [[wp>COVID-19|COVID-19]] – and, of course, the aforementioned [[wp>Spherical Earth|shape of our planet]]. |
| | |
| | The reference to a “consensus among experts” as a rhetorical device is certainly //debate-worthy// on many levels. In this context, however, it should only be pointed out that this is again a truth based on //social consensus//, i.e. an agreement within a community to interpret a phenomenon in a certain way (even if this is of course usually based on //correspondence with reality// [research] and/or //coherence with existing knowledge// about the research object). |
| | |
| | Conversely, critics of such positions often try to argue with supposed “common sense”, with arguments that seem plausible enough to non-experts to be compatible with their existing world view. These are all aspects of a “coherence truth” which appeals more to the target group’s [[wp>Confirmation bias|confirmation bias]] or, in some cases, perhaps even [[relevancy:wishful_thinking:index|wishful thinking]]. |
| | |
| | Which position is the “more correct” one will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. What is important for us is that classification according to the different types of truth as described above is not in itself a sufficient indication of which side should be believed. |
| | |
| | <aside info>**Note:** While the “scientific consensus” as an argument for discussion should certainly be questioned in some cases (more on this under: <span maniculus "see:">[[relevancy:authority:index|Argument from authority]]</span>), it is certainly a good [[wp>Heuristic|heuristic]] for non-experts to arrive at a //probably// correct conclusion. At least in most cases, this is almost certainly a better approach than relying on outsider positions. |
| | |
| | **However:** A non-scientific, so-called “internal consensus” within a discipline (e.g. [[wp>Homeopathy|homeopathy]], [[wp>Astrology|astrology]], etc.) may not always be so easily distinguishable from a “scientific consensus” to an outsider. |
| | </aside> |
| ===== Conclusions ===== | ===== Conclusions ===== |
| |
