How many scientist out of 100 must believe something is real to make it so?

Question

What if 92 scientists out of 100 believed something was real? Would that make it true?

What if only 77 out of 100 scientists believed that same thing was real? Could we classify that as being correct?

Or does a simple majority of scientist make something true?

Isn't a vote of scientist a folly of the scientific method of objective science? Shouldn't we believe the facts rather than a vote of scientist?

Answer 1

If you ask scientists, "are humans responsible for harmful significant warming," I would bet that a small minority might say yes but that just shows that there are always a few that don't think for themselves and are willing to go with the crowd.

Answer 2

We can never know for certain what is real and what isn't because a hypothesis can't be proven, only disproven based on evidence. A theory is an accumulation of hypotheses, evidence, and data that support an idea. So no matter how much evidence we have, we can never be absolutely certain. I will say that something can probably be considered real if it gains the status of "theory" and stands the test of time (as long as it is not disproven). I don't care about a simple vote or opinion, I care about how much evidence there is. (no satire this time, sorry about last time)

Answer 3

Nobody would know if it's true or not if somebody "believed" it.

Answer 4

Its not real until it can be proven with a repeatable experiment.

Answer 5

Look, people's perception regardless of evidence will always outweigh any scientific fact. Changing people's perception is the most critical thing to do.

But don't fret because history has proven that the majority perception can ultimately change overtime such as: the belief that the sun revolved around the earth in which the bible suggested. It took over 200 years before the Catholic Church accepted the scientific evidence that the earth revolved around the sun. The same goes for the belief that the surface of the earth was flat. This was a common idea until the Classical Greeks began to discuss its shape about the 4th century BC.

Answer 6

Believe the facts instead of the few scientists who don't believe the facts and come up with stupid things like Mars and Pluto are warming!!   How about all the other planets?   Why aren't they warming?   If Pluto (yea, I know it isn't a planet anymore) warms one degree from a warming sun, we would be vaporized.   Try taking the "facts" put out and use your own brain to see if they have any basis.

Answer 7

It only takes one to prove or disprove something and if the other scientist are honest they should be able to stipulate.

Answer 8

Of course the real answer is zero.

But who has a better handle on the "facts"?  Evil, power hungry, greedy climatologists or honest, caring and compassionate right wing bloggers?

Answer 9

Just a few semantic issues with the question:

A. Who believes what has no bearing on if it's real or not.  Just because Mr. X doesn't believe in gravity doesn't mean it's not real.

B. There's a vast difference in the requirements for proving a scientific law and scientific theory.  A scientific law will be accurate 100% of the time and is undisputable (gravity). Theories, on the other hand, are broadly accepted but may be disputed or even disproven over time as new research is developed (Global warming).

Basically it's not so much how many scientists disagree as it is how strong are their arguments. Can they disprove it or do they just have an opposing hypothesis? 1 scientist may completely debunk a widely accepted idea with critical data.  Or perhaps 28% don't believe it but have nothing to back up their claims.  

Science is a process.  There will always be an on-going discussion. That doesn't mean something isn't true, just that there's more to be learned.

Answer 10

Really it could in theory be none. All of the scientist could be wrong about what they believe. Scientist are people too and they could very well be making the biggest mistake ever be promoting the man made global warming.

Answer 11

Either way I think 99 out of 100 is an overstatement.

I mean it depends on what you're asking them to agree to.    That it warmed in the 20th century?     That CO2 traps heat?

I think you get a lot less than 99 who would agree that the CO2 released by man overshadows all the other long-term climate drivers, has brought the present temperatures above the levels seen in thousands of years, will trigger sufficient warming to spur a release of methane that will in turn cause truly catastrophic warming, causing sea levels to rise noticeably.

1 thumb down - see this is what I mean - does anyone honestly believe it's 99-1 on catastrophic man-made global warming?     How can anyone take that seriously?

Answer 12

In addition to that, assuming that global warming is real, which I think that it is, the scare stories that the global warming nuts are ridiculous.

I am not convinced that global warming is such a problem that it is going to kill us.

However if I do not go to work, I will not be able to get the money that I need to pay my mortgage and feed and clothe my children.

These stupid global warming nuts think that gasoline prices should be kept high to force us out of our cars so that we have to walk or ride bicycles instead.

I have to commute over 50 miles to work.

I am not going to ride a bicycle to work to satisfy the global warming nuts, even though I agree with them that global warming is real.

I am also tired of the global warming nuts who want to keep gasoline prices high.

That is just a big drain on me financially and just makes it harder for me to pay my mortgage and feed and clothe my family.

I am disgusted that most of these global warming nuts are also Democrats.

I can remember when the Democratic Party was all about making life easier for the working people so that we could pay our mortgages and feed and clothe our families.

Now it seems that the Democrats and the global warmong nuts are doing everything that they can possibly do to bankrupt us.

Answer 13

Depends on the data.  But when 99 of 100 scientists say something like global warming is real, you can be sure there's plenty of data behind it.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

Answer 14

Correct... most science if it is wrong will wave red flags at U. A lot of the science might miss it but with a little study U should get the truth... There has been a lot of people fall for Global Warming .  Look at there data... to get a true average would be near impossible. There are many more data points in the warm zone than in the cold zone. To average this scenario would give an apparent increase in temperature. Then using the old city measurements in in error as they are not calibrated. The green house gas is not out there in the quantities they say.

Answer 15

It wouldn't make it true as reality does not care what we believe.

Though science is a pretty good way of finding the truth so if you see scientists all moving towards one conclusion there's a good chance it is true (notice how every respectable scientist accepts the consensus about global warming, even many who were well known as skeptics of global warming (back in the day when there were people deserving of the title skeptic that didn't accept global warming)).