Apart from all the AfD's erroneous conclusions, however, it should have understood that scientific consensus - i.e. agreement among scientists - is the best indicator that we know something. know something!
Really know something? Is that even possible? You probably know the famous quote that is said to go back to Socrates: "I know that I know nothing". How can we say with absolute certainty that what we see and hear is actually what really IS? We cannot! Science therefore never speaks of incontestable knowledge. So how does science create knowledge? A basic lesson in scientific practice.
Research also defines "knowledge" as all the assertions,
- which we consider to be correct on the basis of observations and logic and
- despite corresponding efforts.
It relies on empirical research, i.e. it systematically conducts experiments and studies, collects vast amounts of data and analyzes it. In this way, it can confirm - or refute - a hypothesis.
Every research project begins with the hypothesis...
... a scientific assertion or an explanatory approach that is intended to answer our research question. The philosopher of science Karl Popper demanded that every hypothesis should always be formulated in such a way that it is "falsifiable", i.e. refutable. This is the only way researchers can rule out other explanations.
The statement "All swans are white" is falsifiable: if a black swan is sighted, the statement is refuted. The statement "There are black swans" can only be confirmed if a black swan is spotted, but cannot be refuted because we can never be sure that we have seen all swans. The second sentence would therefore not be useful as a hypothesis for a scientific study.
From hypotheses to theory
Scientific experiments and studies are therefore deliberately designed in such a way that researchers can disprove the hypothesis. If the hypothesis withstands the scrutiny of several researchers, it becomes increasingly likely that it is correct. Further hypotheses are developed based on the same explanatory approaches. If these can also be supported by experiments, scientific consensus can emerge. Scientific assertions become generally accepted theories.
Examples of recognized theories
The earth is round. It revolves around the sun. Nothing moves faster than light. The greenhouse effect leads to global warming.
Knowledge updates
Nevertheless, theories have also been rejected, precisely because scientific claims are constantly being tested using the latest measurement methods and research approaches.
Examples
The earth was long considered to be a disk until we discovered that it is round. Popular medical treatments turned out to be ineffective and even dangerous. Newton's theory of gravity was also superseded by Einstein's general theory of relativity - but is still considered a sufficient description in most applications of mechanics.
Using the famous IPCC climate reports as an example, you can see how we learn through science: every few years, 100 to 250 experts publish an update on the current state of knowledge about climate change that is several thousand pages long. To ensure that the report is really accurate, thousands of other researchers are involved as review editors and monitoring committees.
Beware of pseudo-knowledge!
Disproved theories are the ideal breeding ground for pseudoscience. They use so-called immunization strategies: every contradiction that arises is self-confidently justified with a self-made explanation. Counter-arguments are ignored with flimsy justifications - often supported by questionable sources.
Marc-Uwe Kling, author of the "Kangaroo Chronicles", outlines the problem in a humorous way: in his current film "The Kangaroo Conspiracy", his protagonists come up with the theory of a cube Earth (the Earth is not a sphere, but a cube). After all, maps are square and the big waterfalls lie exactly on the edges of the cube. The kangaroo demonstrates the immunization strategy against contradictions:
Why have we never read anything about it? - The press doesn't write about it because it's bought. What about pictures of the spherical Earth? - The CIA forces all astronauts to use a special wide-angle lens that makes the cube shape unrecognizable from space.
Any objection is futile.
Belief is not knowledge
It is also important to distinguish between "knowledge" and "belief". The AfD does not believe in man-made climate change. But climate change is not a question of faith, it is a question of knowledge! Or as astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson likes to say: Science is true whether you believe in it or not.
People who believe in a God have a deep conviction that there is a God. They can neither confirm nor refute this, but trust in its existence. This is the impressive basis of religion. Nevertheless, we must recognize here that we do not know, but believe.
Why don't you put your own beliefs - your knowledge - to the test?
There is no scientifically verifiable evidence for some widely held beliefs. Actively look for contradictions! Are you prepared to be "proven wrong"? Are you discovering your own immunization strategies? Below are a few suggestions for self-testing with recommended sources.
Can we believe science?
So how do we know that today's knowledge is of quality? Before a scientific publication is published, it usually undergoes a peer review process: Uninvolved scientists check the work against the quality criteria of science:
Is the method comprehensible? Does it really measure what it is supposed to measure? Is it reproducible, i.e. can the experiment be repeated at will? Do the researchers maintain objectivity - starting with the research question, the choice of methodology and the interpretation of the results?
Peer reviews are a safeguard to ensure that only valid results are made available to the public. In some cases, research results are published before they have been reviewed in order to make them available for discussion by experts at an earlier stage. This was the case during the coronavirus pandemic, for example.
Nevertheless, the scientific system itself can be criticized and improved. Scientists are well aware of this. Frequent points of criticism are: The great power of established scientific journals, inadequate peer review procedures of some smaller scientific journals, the limited and expensive access to publications, research results that cannot be reproduced(replication crisis). The view that only those who publish and are cited a lot are considered scientifically successful creates false incentives for scientists. In individual cases, unfortunately, even experimental results have been falsified.
Nevertheless, scientific consensus is the best indication that we are "right". It is the "best" knowledge we have and those who immerse themselves in the world of knowledge are rewarded with new and exciting insights into this world.
Interestingly, the German government actually had to correct its own claim of 97 percent consensus among climate scientists. 99 percent of experts are already convinced of man-made climate change. There is currently nothing to suggest that this assumption is not correct(Bundestag, Süddeutsche Zeitung).
The rapid global warming of the last 70-80 years has not only been noticed by one person, but countless scientists around the world confirm man-made greenhouse gases as the main cause. The US geologist James Powell has repeatedly examined the scientific consensus on this. As early as 2012, he published that out of 33,700 publications, only 34 were not convinced of man-made climate change. Further studies have repeatedly confirmed the high level of consensus among scientists.
To read, listen and watch:
Put your knowledge to the test
Suggested topics
Gender-equitable language
Situation: Now they want to ban us from speaking the way we should! You often hear this saying when aspects of language that are perceived as discriminatory are discussed. And indeed - language can have an extraordinarily strong influence on perception, as various studies have shown, particularly on gender-equitable language.
Media sources: Car mechanics - how language shapes children's perceptions of professions
Peer-reviewed publication: Does Gender-Fair Language Pay Off? The Social Perception of Professions from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective
Homeopathy
Situation: According to current knowledge, homeopathic medicine does not work beyond the placebo effect: this means that taking globules can have a positive effect - but only to the extent that another preparation without an active ingredient could also help. This is the placebo effect - a purely psychological effect. Many studies have provided convincing evidence that, at best, globules do not contain an effective active ingredient.
Media sources: Frankfurther Allgemeine - Heiligkeit Homöopathie Peer-reviewed publication: A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy
Autism and mumps measles rubella vaccination
The myth that there is a link between autism and MMR vaccinations stems from a 1998 case study by British doctor Andrew Wakefield. The study had to be retracted by the publishing scientific journal due to serious flaws. Since then, many studies and meta-studies have been unable to establish a link between MMR vaccination and autism.
Investigations suggest that Andrew Wakefield was pursuing his own economic interests with the publication. He has since been banned from his profession.
Media sources: Die Zeit - Panik vor dem Piks, Pharmazeutische Zeitung - Kein Zusammenhang zwischen Autismus und Impfungen
Peer-reviewed publications: The MMR Vaccine and Autism
