Consensus as Anti-Science

“Consensus,” we recently read, “is central to Science because it sets forth that which is accepted as true, saving us from having to reestablish those truths over and over again. Science is, more than anything, an ongoing process of consensus, a process that ensures that new findings of merit will surface and, when warranted, achieve a paradigm shift.” 

Bogus, we say. “New findings of merit” by outsiders are no more welcome in the Ivory Towers of consensus science than Ralph Nader is at the Ford Motors annual picnic. Consensus means alignment of opinion: solidarity—by definition and historical observation, consensus is closed and suppressive in all sectors including science. Ideally, consensus would serve as a breather between quests, a point where the best guess of the moment and all things anomalous are spread out, and opposing views are solicited far and wide for open-minded examination. However, at the present stage of human neurological development, there are too few examples of such idealism. 

Consensus among peers does not require fact, proof, or anything more than political agreement arrived at through a range of machinations, centering on power displays and some form of quid pro quo: “I’ll agree to this, if you’ll agree to that.” And, unlike peers, outsiders have no voice at all at the table. So, not surprisingly, dogma runs as rampant in the fields of science as in the clock-workings of religion. Why should citizen tax dollars be supplied by the billions to sustain hopeless mediocrity while innovative minds are forced to conduct kitchen-table experiments and fund garage-based projects with credit cards and home-equity loans? The investment of government—if not corporate—research dollars should be, at least, better diversified. 

Enhanced Human Perception™ and Noetitek™ are the independent initiatives of one man named Eastwood. Some years ago, while seeking food for thought in a used book store, he discovered a seemingly untouched twenty-year-old four-pound tome titled: Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, by R. Buckminster Fuller, scientist-philosopher-individualist according to the cover. Opening to the first page of text, Eastwood discovered a kindred spirit: “Fuller…discerns patterns and accepts their significance on faith…a mind that…refuses to swallow the predigested”—i.e., one who pursues pure science and ignores the consensus.


Tags: , , ,

6 Responses to “Consensus as Anti-Science”

  1. Valiant Says:

    Intelligent, well-educated people often fall into the trap of too easily (if not blindly) accepting misinformation as fact–not by too quickly buying into some wild theory found on the internet, but by failing to consider that a recognized expert may be wrong. When a journalist states that their certainty about something is based on “unequivocal reports” of, for example, some government panel, believing that there could not possibly be any coloring of the truth due to a political agenda, or oversight due to narrowly focused credentials, you have good reason to suspect that this person is vulnerable to bouts of extreme credulity.

  2. PluribusOne™ Says:

    The fewer the facts available, the greater the tendency to fall prey to presumption and “confirmation bias” and, therefore, the greater the need to proceed systematically. The Noetitek System™ is comprehensive as well as expeditious, and its use is consistently productive.

  3. Sara B. Good Says:

    Is the problem of consensus not equally a problem in the arts?

  4. PluribusOne™ Says:

    Absolutely. Excellent point. A perfect example for present-day artists and scientists would be the Italian Renaissance architect Flilppo Brunelleschi’s refusal to pay his dues to retain membership in a guild that was imposing more rules, restrictions, requirements than he found tolerable. Although arrested and imprisoned, he was released from prison, but, more importantly, he was released from the power of consensus.

  5. Valiant Says:

    An alternative news source that I have found reliable and reputable is Atlantis Rising magazine. In the March/April 2010 issue an article appears that seems to support your thinking about the anti-science tendency of consensus. The article, titled “Big Science on Trial” blows the roof off shenanigans by the research establishment’s fraud in promoting a consensus about human-caused global warming, including pointing out that global temperatures actually appear to have been declining for at least the past ten years. The magazine is still on the stands so please get a copy and see what you think. The global warming issue has global implications for the economy.

  6. PluribusOne™ Says:

    I am not sure whether global warming is a real problem, and, if it is, I am not sure what the cause or causes might be. I do know that simple logic is not enough and that the forces of consensus are unconvincing, for the reasons I stated in the post, reasons reinforced by articles such as you mention. The article, which does not attempt to settle the global warming question, appears credible with respect to the revelation of an engineered deception. As emphasized by the author, the problem is rooted in the “peer review system itself” because legitimacy of mainstream science is based on that.

    The report of corruption in the peer review system supports what I said about consensus being anti-science due to inadequate neurological development of scientists, despite academic credentials and positions held. This is truly an “inconvenient truth” for Big Science, while it underlines the importance of our effort to expand the application of our Noetitek™ technology. Higher neurological circuits need to be opened on global scale; until then, we can expect to see more revelations of desperate acts of deception by neurologically-challenged and establishment-hampered intellectuals and people who provide their funding.

    Our nonprofit think-tank initiative to promote the new science of Enhanced Human Perception™ needs your support now. Please visit:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s