As scientists, we have to hold ourselves to a standard that requires us to reach a consensus about which model is right, and then to move on to other questions.
This is an example Goodhart’s law. Real sciences of course ultimately reach a consensus around the truth, but trying for consensus for the sake of consensus is likely to result in a consensus around a false belief being reached.
but trying for consensus for the sake of consensus
I think the aim is not consensus, but consistency. If two camps hold irreconcilable views, one of them is wrong and it’s highly useful to know which one. The fact that both views have some domains where they seem to work better than the other is not a good excuse.
I think the aim is not consensus, but consistency.
Consistency with what. If you mean consistency with the truth, I agree. However, the context talks about consistency among expert positions, which is what is normally called consensus. Downvoted for introducing terminology for seemingly no purpose other than to confuse the issue.
If two camps hold irreconcilable views, one of them is wrong and it’s highly useful to know which one.
True, however, pushing for consensus or consistency will not tell you which one is wrong. Rather it will result in one of them being declared “wrong”, not necessarily the one that actually is.
The fact that both views have some domains where they seem to work better than the other is not a good excuse.
Ok, did you mean to write this in reply to some other comment?
This is an example Goodhart’s law. Real sciences of course ultimately reach a consensus around the truth, but trying for consensus for the sake of consensus is likely to result in a consensus around a false belief being reached.
I think the aim is not consensus, but consistency. If two camps hold irreconcilable views, one of them is wrong and it’s highly useful to know which one. The fact that both views have some domains where they seem to work better than the other is not a good excuse.
Unless of course you’re operating in a situation best modelled by paraconsistent logic.
But finding that out would require looking.
Would you care to provide some examples along with arguments why paraconsistent logic is the best way to model them?
Consistency with what. If you mean consistency with the truth, I agree. However, the context talks about consistency among expert positions, which is what is normally called consensus. Downvoted for introducing terminology for seemingly no purpose other than to confuse the issue.
True, however, pushing for consensus or consistency will not tell you which one is wrong. Rather it will result in one of them being declared “wrong”, not necessarily the one that actually is.
Ok, did you mean to write this in reply to some other comment?
Internal consistency of the science as a body of knowledge. “Consistency with the truth” is better expressed by the simple adjective “true”.
It’s not consensus either. Consistency is a property of a theory (or a set of theories). Consensus is a property of a set of experts.
No, but it will provide impetus and motivation to find out which one is wrong.