Consensual VS Dissension Approach to Science

The debate surrounding the consensus on climate change is complicated by the complexity of both the scientific and the associated sociopolitical issues. Underlying this debate is a fundamental tension between two competing conceptions of scientific inquiry: the consensual view of science versus the dissension view [24]. Under the consensual approach, the goal of science is a consensus of rational opinion over the widest possible field [25]. The opposing view of science is that of dissension, whereby scientific progress occurs via subversion of consensus in favor of new experiments, ideas and theories. There are four arguments that undermine the consensus perspective [24]: scientific research is controversy-laden; incommensurability of theories; underdetermination of theories and successful counternormal behavior. The importance of controversy is evident in Kuhn’s arguments [26], whereby the emergence of new scientific ideas requires a process that permits rational men to disagree, with advocates of different paradigms often subscribing to different methodological standards and cognitive values. Underdetermination implies that inadequate data and understanding does not allow one theory to be selected unambiguously to the exclusion of all its competitors. Feyerabend argues that there are many noteworthy instances of scientific progress whereby scientists have apparently violated the norms or canons usually called scientific [27].

Consensus VS debate as it applies to climate change science.