system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The argument, "There is a large consensus in the scientific community," is a valid point to bring up in an argument.

Now, I'm not saying that scientists can't be wrong nor am I saying that a majority of scientists can't be wrong. However, I am often told that "there is a consensus" is not an argument and should not be brought up in a debate. But the fact that there is a consensus, in my opinion, should carry weight. Scientists are men and women whose job is to hypothesize and test those hypothesis and determine if their hypothesis was tested to be right or wrong; their secondary, but just as important, job is to call and point out the bullshit that their peers may say, to find the mistake in the experiments if there are any. So saying "there is a consensus" isn't just saying that some smart people believe something; it's saying that there is a wealth of evidence to so support an idea that the most skeptical people in the world have come together and said: "all the evidence we have is pointing to this being right." 

I am not saying that we shouldn't look into the things that scientists say nor should we trust everything they say but the very fact that there is a consensus should hold a lot more weight than it does today. 

_______

So I've seen a few counterarguments that keep coming up so I'll address them here. 

1. You cannot use the fact that "there is a large consensus" to prove something.

Well...yeah. I know. I never said that the fact that there is a large consensus should be the end all be all, simply that it shouldn't be seen as worthless. I don't understand why the fact that there is a large consensus is just shrugged off with a  "whatever"

2. Science can be wrong. 

Again, I did admit that the consensus can be wrong. But to logically follow this argument is to say that you cannot trust science at all, that you should interpret everything yourself. The point of specialization is that if you have not specialized in something, say a field in science, it should not be your job to know about that field. Why should I, a non-scientist, be able to talk about astronomy as well as say Neil deGrasse Tyson? 

3. By saying that there is a consensus, I'm using an asshole argument

I would argue instead that by saying that there is a consensus, I am merely asking you what makes you doubt the consensus? If you have had a different experience, that sucks. And I admit that there are places in which saying that there is a consensus adds nothing to the conversation/argument but why is it dismissed all the time?

4. A consensus means nothing

Saying that a consensus is nothing is like saying "the theory of evolution by natural selection isn't true because it's only a theory." But the fact that this is a theory implies that there is so much evidence toward this hypothesis that the scientific community has agreed that there is a low likelihood that new evidence will come to light to disprove this hypothesis. A consensus is similar in that there is evidence implied in the word, that for the consensus to have existed that there is evidence for it! 

5. You're appealing to an authority

Yes...I am because they know more than me and know more than the average laymen. When a plumber tells me that I need to fix my plumbing, I'll probably trust him. If I feel I need a second opinion, I won't go to a doctor, I'll go to another plumber. I am trusting in the people who know about the subject matter to tell me about it. 

6. A scientist studying A won't know about B

Of course, that's why I'm trusting the people studying B when I say that there is a consensus on B. I'm talking about the relevant academics.

7. Some comparison to religion

The difference between religion and science has always been that the former doesn't look for proof. And that's okay, that's what a religion is. It's a moral guidance and it's unlikely that science will ever come up with a "we have proved what is right and wrong." 

Edit: Not sure how formatting works.
gpt
> So saying "there is a consensus" isn't just saying that some smart people believe something; it's saying that there is a wealth of evidence to so support an idea that the most skeptical people in the world have come together and said: "all the evidence we have is pointing to this being right."

I think the problem with this is that, if there is a wealth of evidence to support an idea then it's almost always better to point out the evidence itself, rather than just saying it exists and that most scientists see eye-to-eye because of said evidence. 

If all you do is say there's evidence without actually showing what it is, then you're basically just telling them to "Google it". And that is not really a "valid point" to make in an argument.