My point was that it is the discussion of results that creates a consensus, not the production of results. Without the discussion of results it would be necessary for everyone to conduct the experiment to create a consensus. Allowing the discussion of results to form the consensus is precisely what allows only some of the people to do the experiment. I was relying on the fact that you said that only some people conduct experiments and contrasting it to the idea of everyone conducting them to make a point.
Let’s take a look at what my “straw man” was actually responding to:
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:118, topic:18722”]
Second-hand reports cannot be used to discredit the current consensus because second-hand reports are justified by that very consensus. Only first-hand reports can be used to challenge the current consensus.
[/quote] (emphasis mine)
If I misunderstood because “first-hand reports” means reports from people who conducted experiments (that is, accounts rather than direct knowledge) then we completely agree that accounts of experiments change the consensus. I took your point to be that only by doing experiments can be change the consensus, not by discussing or reporting on experiments. I disagreed with that because in reality both are necessary.
I must have been born before I murder someone but they don’t put me on trial for being born. Coming first, even necessarily coming first, doesn’t mean it is more important. In science, conducting experiments and sharing results of experiments are both important and no meaningful progress would ever be achieved without both.
I’m okay with that.
