An excellent observation from the Elder of Ziyon on the nature of so-called scientific consensus. He pointed out that not all forms of consensus are the same.
Sometimes a scientific community is engaged in vigorous debate. Both sides present arguments, both publish papers, and both are familiar with each other’s reasoning. Over time, however, one side gradually produces stronger evidence. New discoveries and experiments increasingly support its position, while the opposing view becomes ever more marginal. There are almost always a few respected scholars who refuse to abandon their original convictions, but their ranks continue to shrink. Thomas Kuhn described this process by observing that an old paradigm often disappears only as its defenders gradually die out.
This is how a clear consensus emerged, for example, in favor of evolutionary theory.
But there is another kind of consensus. It arises when one side is not allowed to present its arguments. It is a consensus sustained by shielding a position from open debate. One hallmark of this kind of consensus is that much of the discussion takes place not at the closed, often tedious scientific conferences where specialists normally argue their case, but in political forums.
That sounds straightforward enough, yet reality is more complicated. Whenever a group lacks persuasive arguments, it often claims to be discriminated against or silenced. How, then, can one tell the difference? How can we distinguish between those who are genuinely suppressed by institutional power and those who are simply advancing poor arguments?
Fortunately, we live in an era when a substantial share of scientific publishing is no longer subject to the influence of Western institutions. If a paper is rejected in the West and submitted instead to a journal published, for example, by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, no intelligence agency or corporation can prevent it from receiving a fair review. If a consensus extends across the world rather than merely the West, it is difficult to attribute it solely to the exercise of power.
Even then, however, there is no guarantee that the majority view is ultimately correct.