Yes it does in some cases. Take Alzheimer's disease for example. What is the mechanism for the disease? We don't know. But the consensus is it's not amyloid plaques, based on the most recent data. Some scientists think it still is, but the consensus is it's not.
Scientific truth is not black and white but rather shades of gray. Yes, some things we know the absolute truth (or rather there is so much evidence that it's unlikely it's wrong), but there is plenty that we're just "pretty sure" and that's typically based on consensus.
>Yes it does in some cases. Take Alzheimer's disease for example. What is the mechanism for the disease? We don't know. But the consensus is it's not amyloid plaques, based on the most recent data. Some scientists think it still is, but the consensus is it's not.
The scientific justification we have (in the situation you describe) for our belief comes from the data, not the the consensus.
>Scientific truth is not black and white but rather shades of gray. Yes, some things we know the absolute truth (or rather there is so much evidence that it's unlikely it's wrong), but there is plenty that we're just "pretty sure" and that's typically based on consensus.
On the one hand you speak of scientific truth, on the other hand you speak of what we say we know. It's important to consider these things separately. While what we say we know is often based on what we perceive as a consensus view, scientific truth is not. Yes, a person might be pretty sure that the speed of light is three hundred million meters per second because that is what he perceives to be the consensus among physicists. But the "scientific truth", to whatever extent it is an actual thing, is determined by other factors.
Of course, consensus plays a part in the scientific process. When doing research scientists take into consideration scientific consensus. But when it comes to the strength of a scientific theory, consensus is irrelevant. That is determined by things like how much empirical evidence is there that the theory is correct? Are there simpler explanations? etc.
The scientific justification we have (in the situation you describe) for our belief comes from the data, not the the consensus.
But the data is not always unambiguous. There can be, and often is, two competing theories. It is often consensus as to which one is accepted as mainstream.
I got back to my Alzheimer’s example. It’s the general consensus that the amyloid hypothesis is wrong. However, there are those that hold onto it and it’s not because they don’t grasp the data. There are still enough unknowns to firmly put it to rest.
The bacterial hypothesis is another good example. The data supported that stress and diet was the cause of stomach ulcers. That was the “scientific truth”. It was wrong.
Consensus is nothing more than “what is the best interpretation of the data based on our current understanding”. Current understanding being defined by “what do most scientists think?”.
Your definition of consensus was worded in a way which was confusing to me, so I have reworded it: "Conensus is what most scientists think is the best interpretation of the data".
Sure. I don't have any significant disagreement with that definition.
>The bacterial hypothesis is another good example. The data supported that stress and diet was the cause of stomach ulcers. That was the “scientific truth”.
Not scientific truth. Perhaps the strongest theory given the evidence. Point is, consensus irrelevant non-factor for scientific strength of theory.
Scientific truth is not black and white but rather shades of gray. Yes, some things we know the absolute truth (or rather there is so much evidence that it's unlikely it's wrong), but there is plenty that we're just "pretty sure" and that's typically based on consensus.