Consensus versus Unanimity: Which Carries More Weight?

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Around 97% of climate scientists endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the theory that human activities are partly responsible for recent increases in global average temperatures. Clearly, this widespread endorsement of AGW is a reason for non-experts to believe in AGW. But what is the epistemic significance of the fact that some climate scientists do not endorse AGW? This paper contrasts expert unanimity, in which virtually no expert disagrees with some theory, with expert consensus, in which some non-negligible proportion either rejects or is uncertain about the theory. It is argued that, from a layperson’s point of view, an expert consensus is often stronger evidence for a theory’s truth than unanimity. Several lessons are drawn from this conclusion, e.g. concerning what laypeople should infer from expert pronouncements, how journalists should report on scientific theories, and how working scientists should communicate with the public.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
DELCVU
Upload history
Archival date: 2021-10-22
View other versions
Added to PP index
2021-10-22

Total views
107 ( #44,233 of 64,187 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
107 ( #5,487 of 64,187 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.