Not officially, I guess, but many will try to dismiss objections to their views by saying “oh, I’ve got a consensus on my side” (when they don’t). See here.
Edit: added a link to the same post as a postscript.
Is this an example of a diseased discipline? Philosophers explore conceptual space. Mathematicians explore number space I guess? Yet the latter seems less fractured as discipline at least by my understanding which is probably pitiful.
N00b question here. Are mainstream academic philosopher’s interested in consensus?
Not officially, I guess, but many will try to dismiss objections to their views by saying “oh, I’ve got a consensus on my side” (when they don’t). See here.
Edit: added a link to the same post as a postscript.
Is this an example of a diseased discipline? Philosophers explore conceptual space. Mathematicians explore number space I guess? Yet the latter seems less fractured as discipline at least by my understanding which is probably pitiful.
As discussed recently, there are plenty of cliques in math, physics and other communities, as well. Scientists are fallible.
No doubt, but in science there is an expectation of consensus for the science to be useful.
For science to be useful it has to adequately reflect reality. Consensus is entirely irrelevant.
How is reflection of reality verified?
Empirically.
And when you have N empircally adequate theories..?
Then you are indifferent between them and can choose on e.g. aesthetic criteria.
Consensus sounds better.
It also means something different.
Yes. The thing it means, which is not the the thing “aesthetics” means, is better.
Ah. Well then.