The appeal to “scientific consensus” is fraught with problems, just like “the science is settled,” “trust the science,” and other authoritarian tropes that have dominated the pandemic.
A widely accepted theory, such as the theory of evolution, depends on a consensus being reached among the scientific community, but it must be achieved without censorship or reprisal.
Consensus by Censorship
It’s not difficult to reach a scientific consensus when you squelch dissenting voices.Scientific consensus has become a manufactured construct, dictated by politics and power.
The recent release of the “Twitter Files” reveals how government agencies, big tech, media, and academia colluded in an effort to police online content and censor dissenting voices to create a false perception of consensus.
“The real problem here is the damn press and the internet giants. The press and these tech players act to manufacture and reinforce ‘consensus’ around selected and approved narratives. And then this is being weaponized to attack dissenters including highly qualified physicians.”
The pandemic has made this insidious behaviour more visible, but the reality is that it has been happening for a long time—I would know—I was caught up in it.Consensus in Mainstream Media
As a TV presenter on Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) top-ranking science program Catalyst for over a decade, my role was to investigate science issues and, if necessary, challenge orthodoxy.The ABC is not funded by private industry, but by the public purse, to avoid the bias which befalls the commercial networks. Or so I thought.
Several years ago, my successful career at the ABC came to a grinding halt after defenders of “scientific consensus” criticised several documentaries I produced, which questioned various medical orthodoxies, such as cholesterol-lowering drugs, nutritional guidelines, and the over-prescription of medicines.
One documentary questioned the health impacts of prolonged exposure to wireless devices (such as iPads, laptops, and smartphones) which emit low-frequency radiation—we did our due diligence and undertook an excruciating process of reviewing the program for legal, editorial, and factual integrity.
Industry experts emerged from the shadows, and the media obliged, uncritically reporting criticisms of the program while ignoring those defending it. No attention was paid to industry’s influence over the science.
The ABC caved to the relentless pressure and suspended me from on-air duties, concluding that I had given prominence “to views challenging the scientific consensus.”
And by “scientific consensus,” they meant the position taken by ARPANSA, the very organisation I had criticised for its lax regulations.
Eventually, the ABC banned the program and “restructured” the department by firing the staff. What the network believed would be a quick solution had serious and far-reaching consequences.
It would not only deter future journalists from questioning orthodoxy, but it sent a chilling message that the ABC would succumb to industry pressure and favour scientific consensus.
“Consensus is the business of politics. ... The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
From the Brownstone Institute