Quatrojos are you saying that the logic of science stems from ongoing disagreement among active participants about data and evidence and their meaning.
What happens when the vast majority agree. Isn't that consensus. But you'd throw that away.
surely, science is driven by consensus among participants about data and evidence and what this means. Concensus doesn't flow from any political directive, it's solely driven by data and evidence.
why should the opinion of some scientific outliar be given any credence when the opinion isn't by data and evidence?
