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.
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.