Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results through other scientific debates[2],[3][4][5] and peer review. A conference designed to build consensus is called a consensus conference. [6] [7] [8] Such measures lead to a situation in which members of the discipline can often see such consensus where it exists; However, it can be difficult to tell outsiders that a consensus has been reached, as the “normal” debates through which science progresses may seem like a challenge to outsiders. [9] Occasionally, scientific institutes issue statements aimed at communicating a summary of science from “inside” to “outside” the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy on the topic under study, reaching a consensus can be quite simple. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his direction. The consensus said he was Jewish, ignored him and dismissed him from his post. In fact, there was no agreement on puerperal fever until the early twentieth century. Thus, the consensus took one hundred and twenty-five years to reach the right conclusion despite the efforts of eminent “skeptics” from around the world, skeptics who were humiliated and ignored. And this despite the constant death of women. Among the most influential opponents of this approach was Thomas Kuhn, who instead argued that experimental data always provide data that cannot be fully integrated into a theory, and that falsification alone does not lead to scientific change or damage to scientific consensus.

He suggested that scientific consensus functioned in the form of “paradigms,” which were interconnected theories and underlying assumptions about the nature of the theory itself, connecting different researchers in a particular field. Kuhn argued that only after the accumulation of many “significant” anomalies would the scientific consensus enter a period of “crisis.” At this point, new theories would be sought, and eventually a paradigm would triumph over the old – a series of paradigm shifts rather than a linear progression towards truth. Kuhn`s model also emphasized the social and personal aspects of theory change, showing, using historical examples, that scientific consensus was never really a matter of pure logic or pure facts. [17] However, these periods of “normality” and “crisis science” are not mutually exclusive. Research shows that these are different types of practice, more than different historical periods. [9] In short, a scientific consensus tells us things we have already learned, and it lets us know when things are no longer discussed in science. On the next page, you will find information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change. www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2012/02/climate-change-adaptation-what-federal-agencies-are-doing.pdf • Name here: “What is almost always missing is a third of those who say, `We don`t know enough`, and `Let`s explore the problem further.`” Note that the word “done” in science is different from the everyday use of the word “done.” That is why I decided to use the term “scientific fact”. In everyday language and even in philosophy, the word “fact” is used to refer to something immutable (for example.B.

Is Earth the third planet of the Sun or george Washington was the first president of the United States) [4]. However, in science, as explained above, a “scientific fact” or “truth” is malleable and can change if the evidence requires it. Not to mention those who reject science for ideological reasons and cry out that some scientists may have advanced a hypothesis in the spring and then rejected it in the fall. “However, it is up to science to redo experiments, in a different way on the basis of a different model, to measure with more powerful tools and other approaches and to arrive at new results,” says Yves Ggingras. Building on this scientific approach, further consensus on COVID-19 will build up in the coming months. .