Following a scientific consensus

Concerning a science in which I am incompetent to judge, is it reasonable to follow a consensus of those in that field?

ChatGPT said:

It’s both common and, under the right conditions, epistemically rational to defer to a field’s expert consensus when you lack the specialized knowledge to judge for yourself. But such deference isn’t blind—it depends on certain safeguards and a bit of scrutiny of the social processes by which that consensus was formed. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Why Expert Consensus Matters
   • Division of Cognitive Labor
     In complex sciences, no individual can master every technique, dataset, or theoretical subtlety. We rely on the division of labor: experts specialize, reproduce each other’s results, and converge on findings through multiple independent lines of evidence.
   • Converging Lines of Evidence
     A genuine consensus usually reflects a convergence of different methods (e.g. experiments, observations, modeling) rather than a single study or a lone voice—even if that voice is charismatic or famous.
2. When Deference Is Reasonable
   • Broad Agreement across Independent Teams
     Look for consensus statements or meta-analyses produced by professional societies or international bodies (e.g. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in climate science).
   • Transparent Methods and Open Data
     Fields that publish data, methods, and code openly allow for replication and critique. This transparency is a hallmark of a healthy scientific consensus.
   • Peer Review and Reproduction
     Peer-review isn’t perfect, but reproducibility studies and “journal clubs” help filter out unsupported claims. A consensus that survives repeated replication attempts is more trustworthy.
3. Potential Pitfalls of Deference
   • Groupthink and Social Biases
     Even experts can be swayed by dominant paradigms or funding pressures. Historical examples include early resistance to heliocentrism or continental drift—fields that only shifted after new data forced a paradigm change.
   • Conflicts of Interest
     Pay attention to who funds the research and whether there are industry or political incentives that might skew results.
   • False Balance in Public Communication
     Sometimes media portray “both sides” of a question (e.g. climate change denial vs. climate science) even when one side represents an overwhelming minority. This can distort your perception of true expert consensus.
4. Practical Steps for Responsible Deference
   1. Identify Credible Sources
      • Professional societies (e.g. American Physical Society, American Medical Association)
      • Interdisciplinary assessments (e.g. Cochrane Reviews in medicine)
   2. Look for Consensus Statements or Systematic Reviews
      • These synthesize hundreds (or thousands) of individual studies.
   3. Check for Ongoing Debate
      • Even within a consensus, active debates refine the edges—e.g. “How exactly will climate change affect regional rainfall?” isn’t the same as “Is anthropogenic warming happening?”
   4. Maintain Critical Awareness
      • Deference isn’t abdication. You can watch for red flags: sudden reversals of consensus, scandals about data manipulation, or unusually strong rhetorical defenses of a given position.
5. Philosophical Underpinnings
   • Epistemic Deference
     Philosophers like Alvin Goldman have argued for “epistemic trust” in reliable expert communities. You’re using their track record of success in prediction and technology-development as a proxy for reliability.
   • Social Epistemology
     Science is a communal activity. Trust in its institutions—and in peer review, conferences, and replication—is part of what makes consensus a credible guide.

---

Bottom Line:
Yes—when you genuinely lack the expertise, it is generally reasonable to follow the expert consensus provided you verify that the consensus is broad, transparent, and formed via robust, replicable methods. Guard against blind trust by paying attention to how that consensus was reached, who’s endorsing it, and whether there are credible, independent checks on its validity.