Brent_Allsop replied 14 years ago (Sep 14th 2009, 1:31:15 am)
First off, you seem to be arguing that we can't know if there is a scientific consensus or not? But of course this is absurd.
Before Einstein, the scientific consensus was in the camp that stated F = M * A, and after Einstein, and some additional scientific testing, everyone jumped to the new camp, for which Einstein was the first lone supporter. Both before, and after Einstein, most everyone would agree there was a clear scientific consensus about the differing relationships between force, mass, and acceleration. Your description of this 'model' is just one of many possible distributions of experts within any group. And your example distribution, and the related odds, does not apply to either of these two before and after scientific consensus examples.
One goal of canonizer.com is simply to measure the above scientific revolution process with as much rigor as possible (with far more rigor than anything to date). It seeks to definitively document who are the first supporters of 'correct' theories, before the rest of the sheepish heard shows up, as they are nipped in the heals by the guide dogs of new demonstrable scientific proof. You want to definitively track this kind of reputation so we can, in the future, create canonization algorithms that give far more weight to the camps of these leading mavericks right?
Sure it isn't yet perfect. You are treating 'consensus' as a qualitative term, where I normally use it as a quantitative term (Probably given that this is the first open survey tool anywhere close to being capable of rigorously, quantitatively measuring such) If you are not willing to accept 75% as not being considered a 'consensus' then might I ask you what percentage would be considered a consensus? How would you prefer to say something like "camp X has 51% consensus"?
Also, as of this writing, there are no clear qualophobe camps being represented by any one yet, expert or not, in the topic on [http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88 The best theories of consciousness]. In other words, at least for all participators so far, they are all unanimously qualophiles. I would argue this is a very telling sign, even at this early and still far from comprehensive survey phase. And that this fact, or how much support there is for each side of this issue, is currently grossly being misrepresented in the current qualia article on Wikipedia.
We recently surpassed more than 20 K published and peer reviewed articles on the topic of consciousness, as documented in Chalmers [http://consc.net/mindpapers Mind Papers Bibliography]. The critical problem is nobody can see any signal (where there is the most consensus) from the noise (where there is no agreement) in all this mostly trash, simply because nobody is yet measuring for such. A bunch of us believe that if we can make this scientific consensus stand out from all the trash and noise, everyone will finally get the message of why, what, where, and how to scientifically look for qualia. And once all the sheepish researchers still following Dennet, and the like, finally see this signal standing out from all the 20K pieces of noise, it will finally enable some of them to make what a bunch of us predict will be the greatest and most world changing scientific achievement of all time - the complete theoretical understanding, and demonstrable scientific validation of what we, and our consciousness are.