Archived version: https://archive.ph/WMU7k
Sometimes, a scientific consensus is established because vested interests have diligently and purposefully transformed a situation of profound uncertainty into one in which there appears to be overwhelming evidence for what becomes the consensus view. When a scientific consensus emerges via this accelerated process, the role of the scientific dissident is not, like Semmelweis, to carry out revolutionary science. The dissident’s role is to provide a check against epistemically detrimental and artificial consensus formation. Nevertheless, the challenges faced are similar. Never has this accelerated process unfolded with such success, and such fury, as in the case of the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
I should point out this is not my stance. However, I thought this article is a good stimulus to initiate discussion: while questioning scientific practices has led to some significant improvements despite heavy criticism at the time, how do we today justify dismissing unpopular/uncomfortable ideas while continuing to make scientific progress?
EDIT: I should point out this is not my stance. However, I thought this article is a good stimulus to initiate discussion: while questioning scientific practices has led to some significant improvements despite heavy criticism at the time, how do we today justify dismissing unpopular/uncomfortable ideas while continuing to make scientific progress?
I should have commented in the post that it is not my view and is supposed to initiate discussion. I've edited the original post with the following question:
While questioning scientific practices has led to some significant improvements despite heavy criticism at the time, how do we today justify dismissing unpopular/uncomfortable ideas while continuing to make scientific progress?