>Consensus--even unanymity--is not a scientific basis. But in the
>absense of real evidence, it's a moderately good substitute. I'm
>often willing to go with consensus-based "knowledge" if I think
>it's not worth the effort to find real knowledge...........
It is a kind of empiricist knowledge... : Very useful, but sooner or later
real knowledge and science will substitute (correct) it...
Gomes.
PS: Law... and actual Democracy... are like that, even when (serious)
scientists say certain 'knowledges' are not true... (see clonning debate...)