I’m sure everyone has, at one point or another, heard the term “scientific consensus” and I’m sure everyone at one point or another has encountered the “evidence” against it. Be it in the form of a conspiracy theory or simple science denial.
Here’s the thing though, science isn’t one thing. Its not one person in one lab looking at one thing. Science is many different fields contributing countless pieces of evidence to the pot, building up to a consensus. This is called the convergence of evidence, or “Consilience.”
Convergence of evidence is based on the premise that one truth should be measurable with different methodologies always coming to the same conclusion.
Scientific consensus around things like evolution and climate change exist in this convergence. Geology, climatology, glaciology, ecology, marine biology, oceanography, meteorology, solar physics, ecological genetics, paleoclimatology…the list goes on…each one independently contributes bits of different evidence confirming the nature of climate change. The same exists for evolution.
Science denial and conspiracy theories revolve around gaps, anomalies and negative evidence. Ignoring the convergence is required and they contribute to fundamental misunderstanding of basic science.
“Evolution can’t explain this”…”Science has been wrong before”…”This anomaly proves otherwise”…”The evidence is missing for”…. So the arguments go.
Example: Evolution can’t account for the notorious “missing link” so its wrong. This argument highlights a single missing piece of the fossil record and presents it in relation to the entirety of the evidence. The truth is missing fossil fragments are expected as certain climates favor fossil preservation while others do not. And we have numerous other fossils confirming that which is missing. Additionally, the notorious “missing link” is based upon the faulty premise of macro-evolution that inherently denies the functionality of micro-evolution. The science being represented is already cherry picked.
Likewise, conspiracy theories exist heavily on negative evidence. “They covered it up by killing the only people with actual evidence.” Because conspiracists never have actual evidence, they often attempt to create anomalies by distorting science
Example: there are no stars in photos taken on the moon, ergo, the lunar landing was a hoax. Actually, star pics require around a 30 sec shutter speed to capture enough light, which will blur any moving object…like an astronaut. You can either photograph the stars or the astronaut. You cannot get both.
One piece of evidence, one hole in the knowledge, one anomaly means next to nothing. This is really important in understanding how the convergence of evidence works. Scientific consensus implies mountains of independently obtained confirming evidence from countless and varied sources. Its is like having a 100 piece puzzle, but you lost 10 pieces. Science denial zooms in on the hole and argues the gap is proof the puzzle is wrong. Consilience says, we may be missing 10 pieces, but we can still clearly see the picture, but we can rationally debate what the missing pieces look like.
Science denial and conspiracy theories would have you believe that one individual piece matters more than the whole and this often causes one to become prone to falling into the traps of misinformation.
Always look for the convergence of evidence.
