# Sy Garte on Challenging the Consensus

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/sy-garte-on-challenging-the-consensus/366>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [June 10, 2018, 11:51am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/sy-garte-on-challenging-the-consensus/366 "2018-06-10T11:51:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [June 10, 2018, 4:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/sy-garte-on-challenging-the-consensus/366/7 "2018-06-10T16:50:13Z")

</div>

> [@sygarte](#):
>
> As Christian scientists or Christians interested in science, how should we deal with scientific controversy? There are those who propose we avoid it. They claim that the entire movement of evolutionary creation, theistic evolution (TE/EC), is based on the premise that Christians should strictly adhere to the consensus views of mainstream science and reject the controversial positions associated with pseudoscience, such as young earth creationism or intelligent design. I agree, of course. Being a Christian should not give us warrant to reject sound scientific principles.

I’ve been talking to Scott Lilienfeld, a scientist at Emory, about the psychology these conversations. He writes about a key fact, and gives an important term:

> [@What is Pseudoscience?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-is-pseudoscience/276/4):
>
> Skepticism differs from cynicism. **Skeptics must guard against dismissing implausible claims out of disconfirmation bias.**

He talks about ‘surprising validators,’ and their importance. For example, when I argued on behalf of @Agauger and Buggs, that was an example of a surprising validation. Not many people expected that. If my position was “oppose ID on everything,” it would not have happened. Instead, it was rather to see what I could possibly affirm with integrity. @Agauger has been a surprising validator in the other direction, being kind to me both in public and private, even though I affirm evolutionary science. That sort of exchange is how our understanding moves forward, and we begin to trust each other.

Taking the mental short cut to say that ID is wrong on everything, or the YEC is wrong on everything, forecloses are opportunity to build bridges. It is a type of **disconfirmation bias** , and ends up perpetuating distrust is a clouding truth. It ultimately is a dead end, the dead end we are currently in.

Any how, @sygarte, I’m not sure you are saying to go out mainstream science. I think you are saying we need to

1. be willing to propose new ideas that challenge the consensus
2. risk validating people outside mainstream science when they have a good point
3. avoid the appeal to authority group-think that silences real inquiry

Is that it?

> [@sygarte](#):
>
> Many of these people are not scientists themselves or have not been active researchers, and their focus is not on finding new (and therefore controversial) truths about the world, but rather on teaching known truths and agreed-upon consensus views to other Christians. Their goal is to foster a tolerance from the wider scientific community by avoidance of any boat rocking that might cast doubt on the legitimacy of their claims to be followers of science.

So TRUE.

I wonder if that is actually close the confusion I’ve had with BioLogos. I think they do not really know the rules, so they break them in some places, but are to cautious in others. Seems life a very difficult situation for them. Reminds me of a Proverb:

> The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.  
> Proverbs 4:7

This exchange was very elucidating for both myself and @Patrick:

> [@The Rules of the Game](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-line-in-the-sand/226):
>
> Continuing the discussion from [Who Sponsors Peaceful Science?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/who-sponsors-peaceful-science/216/34): A fairly important distinction has been raised that I think is valuable. It seems that our resident atheist @Patrick and I both share a similar view of how operate, with disagreements in the public square on faith and science. I think this important to call out for several very practical reasons. First, I agree with the distinctions being made here. Clearly making these distinctions are part of what can help bring about Peaceful Science. The fact that our resident “militant” atheist and I (a openly confessing scientist) both agree on this should be a indicator that there should emphasize the value of this point. Second, making this clear is immensely important to students who are listening in. Not knowing the rules, it can just be frightening, not knowing what is allowed and not. Clearly laying out the rules, however, can give confidence about how we can talk about deeply held values, with calling down others who disag…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/sy-garte-on-challenging-the-consensus/366)._