When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

[Native]

Abstract:
It should be clear to everyone who make their thorough research and analysis that there are UNSOLVED PROBLEMS and PARADOXES in several scientific, religious and philosophical branches.

Watch this video and make your contextual connections to all unsolved problems and standing hypothesis which have been a long time on the scientific stage and how these problems are being tackled.

"Why the majority is always wrong" by Paul Rulkens | TEDxMaastricht

An example of useless group thinking:
Once upon a time Newtons ideas of celestial motions around a gravitational center in our Solar System was thought to be universal, but this was contradicted by the later observation of stars orbiting the gravitational centers in galaxies. Instead of revising this idea by looking at alternate possibilities from other fundamental forces, the Newtonian consensus group thinking scientists hypothesized a "dark matter" to "hold the stars from flying away from the galaxies", i. e. to regulate the initial Newtonian celestial assumption.

It is one thing to assume something celestial matter for about 350 yeas ago and another thing to observe cosmos in later times by hugely developed telescopic instruments. One can excuse former scientists and natural philosophers for having assumed and concluded something without taking all possibilities into account, but modern science should not accept former initial assumptions which holds more assumptions in its hypothesis. This ad hoc adding biased method create more problems which becomes more and more unsolvable if continuing this methodic group thinking.

Out of the squared box individual and independent thinking is the method to solve long time standing scientific problems.

Extraordinary problems requires extraordinary thinking and when such thoughts are posted, they of course should be met with gratitude and curiosity instead of by automatic ridiculing group thinking comments.

Regards
Native

 

[PureX]

Good luck getting the believers in "scientism" among us (and there are many, here) to recognize the failure of 'groupthink' inherent in their unwavering belief that consensus and repetition are the prime criteria for ascertaining the truth.

 

[Koldo]

Abstract:
It should be clear to everyone who make their thorough research and analysis that there are UNSOLVED PROBLEMS and PARADOXES in several scientific, religious and philosophical branches.

Watch this video and make your contextual connections to all unsolved problems and standing hypothesis which have been a long time on the scientific stage and how these problems are being tackled.

"Why the majority is always wrong" by Paul Rulkens | TEDxMaastricht

An example of useless group thinking:
Once upon a time Newtons ideas of celestial motions around a gravitational center in our Solar System was thought to be universal, but this was contradicted by the later observation of stars orbiting the gravitational centers in galaxies. Instead of revising this idea by looking at alternate possibilities from other fundamental forces, the Newtonian consensus group thinking scientists hypothesized a "dark matter" to "hold the stars from flying away from the galaxies", i. e. to regulate the initial Newtonian celestial assumption.

It is one thing to assume something celestial matter for about 350 yeas ago and another thing to observe cosmos in later times by hugely developed telescopic instruments. One can excuse former scientists and natural philosophers for having assumed and concluded something without taking all possibilities into account, but modern science should not accept former initial assumptions which holds more assumptions in its hypothesis. This ad hoc adding biased method create more problems which becomes more and more unsolvable if continuing this methodic group thinking.

Out of the squared box individual and independent thinking is the method to solve long time standing scientific problems.

Extraordinary problems requires extraordinary thinking and when such thoughts are posted, they of course should be met with gratitude and curiosity instead of by automatic ridiculing group thinking comments.

Regards
Native

There are essentially two ways to deviate from the majority: the first way is to be a genius, to think outside of the box or to make a discovery, while the second way is to be downright stupid and to misunderstand the whole situation to the point one assumes being part of the first group.

There are many more people in the second group.

 

[Native]

. . . that consensus and repetition are the prime criteria for ascertaining the truth.

I didn´t question this in general but in the cases where long time standing problems are "solved" by adding new assumptions to the initial one which isn´t solved and explained by logical arguments and factual evidences.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Good luck getting the believers in "scientism" among us (and there are many, here) to recognize the failure of 'groupthink' inherent in their unwavering belief that consensus and repetition are the prime criteria for ascertaining the truth.

You think that's limited to 'believers in scientism'???

 

[RestlessSoul]

There are essentially two ways to deviate from the majority: the first way is to be a genius, to think outside of the box or to make a discovery, while the second way is to be downright stupid and to misunderstand the whole situation to the point one assumes being part of the first group.

There are many more people in the second group.

More than two ways, surely?

One thing we can be sure of, anyway. New ground was never broken by those who followed the herd.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An example of useless group thinking:
Once upon a time Newtons ideas of celestial motions around a gravitational center in our Solar System was thought to be universal, but this was contradicted by the later observation of stars orbiting the gravitational centers in galaxies. Instead of revising this idea by looking at alternate possibilities from other fundamental forces, the Newtonian consensus group thinking scientists hypothesized a "dark matter" to "hold the stars from flying away from the galaxies", i. e. to regulate the initial Newtonian celestial assumption.

It is one thing to assume something celestial matter for about 350 yeas ago and another thing to observe cosmos in later times by hugely developed telescopic instruments. One can excuse former scientists and natural philosophers for having assumed and concluded something without taking all possibilities into account, but modern science should not accept former initial assumptions which holds more assumptions in its hypothesis. This ad hoc adding biased method create more problems which becomes more and more unsolvable if continuing this methodic group thinking.

Is there a criticism here of the way that science is done? If so, I don't see it. Are you suggesting that the scientists are engaging in some form of defective thinking that is harmful to the progress of science, or that generates ideas that hold man back or make the scientific method less helpful? Maybe you could give an example of this ad hoc adding biased method create in practice creating "more problems that becomes more and more unsolvable."

Good luck getting the believers in "scientism" among us (and there are many, here) to recognize the failure of 'groupthink' inherent in their unwavering belief that consensus and repetition are the prime criteria for ascertaining the truth.

Yeah, good luck getting people to go for your straw man.

Neither consensus nor repetition are science's nor my criterion for truth. Those are the criteria for indoctrination, which is what we see with commercials, conservative American media, and Sunday school. One just repeats an insufficiently supported claim often enough to people who have no ability to resist the implantation of an idea ("Winston tastes good") until they accept it for lack of critical thinking. A lot of people who live in that world project their own thinking onto others and simply assume that others are doing no more than that themselves, just listening to other indoctrinators.

Science is empirical, meaning that it is inextricably tethered to the observation of physical reality, from which its statements of existential fact, its laws and its theories derive. Consensus plays a role in the launch of a space probe as when mission control takes a poll of its various mission control departments (Booster: go Guidance: go Surgeon: go) to determine whether there are any apparent problems that could affect the launch, but that's not how it is decided that everything really was go. It's a successful mission.

You (and others) refer to some imagined cult of scientism among those who find science useful, people who, like me, say that they consider empiricism the only portal man has to knowledge about the world out there. They're usually religious people grumbling about the field of study that contradicts their faith-based beliefs, no doubt injected into them by indoctrination, since religion has no use for empiricism or evidence. They are the cult, the anti-science cult, people who like to make empty criticisms of the scientific method and its stunning fruit. They are the indoctrinees.

You know who would make a good ally for the religious attacking science because they don't like its discoveries? : the anti-vax people. They also don't like what science says to them I'll bet that they can be convinced to say "scientism! scientism!" rather easily along with everybody else who has a grudge with science, including the flat earthers and the climate deniers. They're prime candidates for the anti-science cult.

Incidentally, we decided that it really was "all systems go" not by the consensus of mission control operators, the source of scientific truth according to you, but the success of the mission. Like I said, science determines what is true about the world by how well an idea maps a piece of reality such that outcomes can be successfully anticipated. That's the difference between what you say science does and what it actually does.

 

[anna.]

There are essentially two ways to deviate from the majority: the first way is to be a genius

There are those who are geniuses, and those who only think they are geniuses.

So how to separate the Einstein from the Dunning-Kruger* poster child?

*("Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it"}

 

[Viker]

He does reference Einstein for a quip. That's it. He never mentioned science beyond that reference and the context had nothing to do with science or scientific methodology. It was about how business stagnates and ultimately fails. He's also a chemical engineer, among many other accomplishments. He likely regards peer review/scientific consensus as a necessary part of the methodology.

 

[Polymath257]

There is those who are geniuses, and those who only think they are geniuses.

So how to separate the Einstein from the Dunning-Kruger* poster child?

*("Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it"}

That's easy enough. Look at who is making predictions for actual observations to be made so the theory can be tested. Look who has the glittering generalities, but no actual details and who is able to give answers to several decimal places.

Those operating via Dunning-Kruger tend not to have details and ignore actual observations. They also tend not to have actual calculations to back up their proposals.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good luck getting the believers in "scientism" among us (and there are many, here) to recognize the failure of 'groupthink' inherent in their unwavering belief that consensus and repetition are the prime criteria for ascertaining the truth.

What's the alternative to science...touchy feely spiritual sky fairy tales?

Disclaimer:
The above is only my opinion couched in a question.
I'm not attacking any religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
George S. Patton

 

[Native]

Is there a criticism here of the way that science is done? If so, I don't see it. Are you suggesting that the scientists are engaging in some form of defective thinking that is harmful to the progress of science, or that generates ideas that hold man back or make the scientific method less helpful? Maybe you could give an example of this ad hoc adding biased method create in practice creating "more problems that becomes more and more unsolvable."

I provided this example:

An example of useless group thinking:
Once upon a time Newtons ideas of celestial motions around a gravitational center in our Solar System was thought to be universal, but this was contradicted by the later observation of stars orbiting the gravitational centers in galaxies. Instead of revising this idea by looking at alternate possibilities from other fundamental forces, the Newtonian consensus group thinking scientists hypothesized a "dark matter" to "hold the stars from flying away from the galaxies", i. e. to regulate the initial Newtonian celestial assumption.

You know who would make a good ally for the religious attacking science because they don't like its discoveries? : the anti-vax people. They also don't like what science says to them I'll bet that they can be convinced to say "scientism! scientism!" rather easily along with everybody else who has a grudge with science, including the flat earthers and the climate deniers. They're prime candidates for the anti-science cult.

Are you quite sure that the consensus group thinking in medical science (here vaccines) is valid all way through? For instants: Why is it that two time vaccinated persons still are affected by virus? How is it now that a third vaccination now is recommended in several countries?

 

[Native]

*("Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it"}

Couldn´t this sentence fit on the consensus group thinkers as well?

 

[Native]

That's easy enough. Look at who is making . . .

So you think it is a question of personal matters?

 

[anna.]

Couldn´t this sentence fit on the consensus group thinkers as well?

Ordinarily, pre-Covid vaccine, pre-election, pre-QAnon, I might have thought that a mass incompetence would be difficult to achieve. There is such a thing as mass hysteria, and for example cults share the same beliefs that could be wrong - but that might fall under mass hysteria, a mass deception rather than mass incompetence. But now there are so many armchair experts in epidemiology, ballot forensics and the 'deep state' that you ask a fair question.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I provided this example:

Yes, I saw your example, but you didn't explain why you considered it a problem. What i saw was a typical example of a scientific paradigm evolving to fit new data. For easy access, here is what you offered: "Once upon a time Newtons ideas of celestial motions around a gravitational center in our Solar System was thought to be universal, but this was contradicted by the later observation of stars orbiting the gravitational centers in galaxies. Instead of revising this idea by looking at alternate possibilities from other fundamental forces, the Newtonian consensus group thinking scientists hypothesized a "dark matter" to "hold the stars from flying away from the galaxies", i. e. to regulate the initial Newtonian celestial assumption."

Occam says that the simplest model that accounts for all of the relevant evidence is the preferred one. Once, it was though that the earth was flat and motionless, until discoveries were made to suggest otherwise. Based on this, the narrative was modified to reflect this new knowledge.

And once, a geocentric universe was sufficient to explain all available evidence except the apparent retrograde motion of planets like Mars, that appear to stop in their orbits, reverse direction for a while, then stop and reverse back to the original direction once again. Early astronomers tried to account for this with a series of overcomplicated epicycles, until somebody noticed that a much simpler hypothesis - a heliocentric model - also accounted for the apparent retrograde motion, but much more simply. Occam and his principle of parsimony were validated again.

This is how science progresses. Framing this as groupthink and implying that it hold science back seems like a specious argument, especially since no example including the one you offered has been offered in support of the idea that this normal progress is somehow a defect in thought or an impediment to scientific progress.

Also consensus and groupthink are not synonyms. Do you know the difference between a school of fish and a shoal of fish: "When fish, shrimp or other aquatic creatures swim together in a loose cluster, this is typically called a shoal. It can be a mix of different species. A school is a group of the same fish species swimming together in synchrony; turning, twisting and forming sweeping, glinting shapes in the water."

This is a school of fish and a shoal of sharks. Both are acting cooperatively, but that's where the similarity ends. The sharks are not in lockstep, nor under the sawy of some external field directing thier motions like the school.

With a shoal, the fish are all still swimming as a group, but not in lockstep, not all aligning with the next fish or turning as a single organism. The latter best describes the scientific community. They are not in lockstep under the influence of an external field. They are individuals who share the same idea of how physical truth is determined, most coming to the same conclusions as the majority, but not because it is the consensus of the majority, but because they all use the same methodology to decide what is true.

Think of fans at a ball game who leave thinking that they saw a good game. That's consensus, but not groupthink. Each fan concluded independently by assessing the evidence (watching the game) that he or she enjoyed the game, not by some external pressure compelling them people to think that way

Are you quite sure that the consensus group thinking in medical science (here vaccines) is valid all way through? For instants: Why is it that two time vaccinated persons still are affected by virus? How is it now that a third vaccination now is recommended in several countries?

I'm not sure what you're asking. What I believe is that the scientific method is valid and can generate reliable "truths" about reality - ideas that can be used to successfully anticipate outcomes.

You don't seem to understand the science. Perhaps you shouldn't be critiquing it. The recommendation for a third initial shot in the initial series in the immunocompromised and for booster at eight months is not evidence of a flaw in the scientific method.

Look at how many people who don't want to take the vaccine consider the fact that the vaccinated can get COVID evidence that the vaccine doesn't work. You're not seeing the rest of us saying that. The vaccine is working for us now, and we will willingly get boosters when ready to keep it working.

 

[Polymath257]

So you think it is a question of personal matters?

The question was how to tell the difference between a genius and someone who is incompetent.

It matters what they are claiming and the basis of such claims. I don't see that as 'personal matters', but as issues about their case.

Look at what is being claimed and the evidence used.

Are there specific claims made about observations that could test the ideas?

Are there detailed calculations to back up the claims?

Can the claims be given to some number of decimal places of accuracy?

If the claims are wrong, is there a test *given by those making the claims* that would prove it wrong?

Or, are the claims rather vague, with no details?

Are the claims made without any mathematical foundation?

Is the terminology confused?

Are contrary observations ignored?

Are simple test cases ignored?

 

[Native]

Yes, I saw your example, but you didn't explain why you considered it a problem. What i saw was a typical example of a scientific paradigm evolving to fit new data.

The problem of the discovery of the galactic rotation, is that Newtons ideas of gravitationally caused celestial motion was contradicted on the galactic scales, but this Newtonian gravy/orbital idea is STILL used all over in the universe and simply patched up by an idea of "dark matter". When being contradicted, it scientifically should have been revised and possibly abandoned.

As it stands now, this once personal idea of Newton has become a collective about 300 years consensus group thinking idea which factually is useless since it needs an added unseen and unexplained force to work at all as a theory.

Native said: ↑
Are you quite sure that the consensus group thinking in medical science (here vaccines) is valid all way through? For instants: Why is it that two time vaccinated persons still are affected by virus? How is it now that a third vaccination now is recommended in several countries?

I'm not sure what you're asking. What I believe is that the scientific method is valid and can generate reliable "truths" about reality - ideas that can be used to successfully anticipate outcomes.

Look at how many people who don't want to take the vaccine consider the fact that the vaccinated can get COVID evidence that the vaccine doesn't work. You're not seeing the rest of us saying that. The vaccine is working for us now, and we will willingly get boosters when ready to keep it working.

When reading the medical history of "fighting vira", this has been going on for about 100 years and vira are still around and it never can be exterminated - also because of the continuous mutations. STILL the medical science and virologists group thinking claims the vaccines to work, and as most persons have this exaggerated believe in authorities, they swallow it all raw and accept all kinds of personal restrictions.

The recommendation for a third initial shot in the initial series in the immunocompromised and for booster at eight months is not evidence of a flaw in the scientific method.

When it comes to the development of the latest covid vaccines, one even cannot speak of a scientific method since the about 10 year process standard method of developing vaccines hasn´t been followed at all.

You don't seem to understand the science. Perhaps you shouldn't be critiquing it.

Well, maybe you rather have me to follow the consensus group thinking too?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
So you think it is a question of personal matters?

The question was how to tell the difference between a genius and someone who is incompetent.

I wouldn´t let any consensus group thinker to decide if someone is genius or not as they simply wouldn´t understand something outside the squared boxes where the genius and alternate ideas are found.