On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:49:04 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Cessna 310 wrote, On 4/5/2007 6:31 PM:

After working with others for years developing ANSI and ISO standards,
the meaning of consensus is fairly well understood. It basically means
that though everyone may not agree with the final document, all the
objections and negative votes have been addressed. The "final" standard
is one that everyone can live with.

Using this practical definition, there is no consensus agreement on
whether or not man is the cause of global warming.


That could be why this use of "consensus" is meaningless for
scientific issues. For standards, everyone has already agreed to the
concept that a 100% consensus that "everyone can live with" is more
important than having a "perfect" standard.

In the scientific world, a 100% consensus has no value, and in fact is
undesirable. Scientists look for the truth, not some compromise that
the most people can live with. The skeptics serve an important role
in the process. In this world, the meaning of "consensus" is quite
different.


I also worked with ISO and, additionally, with self directed teams in
organizations. The teams had in their charter that consensus would be
the only means of arriving at a decision. The meaning of consensus in
both of those arenas is just as described by Cessna 310. Multiply my
experience by the number of other organizations that have been exposed
to that and the population is large.

Jeff, my only point is that for many people that is the meaning of
consensus. If that group hears that word used in the case of GW, but
knows that there are dissenters, then the credibility of those in the
majority will be discounted. As you said, it is too important a
matter to let that happen and there are better describers that will
not cause that to happen.

I'm not commenting on the reality of GW, the cause, and certainly not
on any course of action with regard to it, just on being as clear as
possible about what gets reported to the general public. Nor am I
commenting on your opinion on the matter, since I don't actually know
what it is.

I'm as concerned as most about the probability of GW, and have taken
more personal action in that regard than the Al Gore's, John Travoltas
and others who seem to know what "we" should do, but are not willing
to do themselves. Add them and others like them to what many "common
folks" feel is a misues of the term "consensus" , and you get a
discount of the issue that is not in anyone's best interest.

And I do understand that in the dictionary, depending on which one and
which version, majority is used as a definition in some order. My
world book and MW have general agreement, unanimity as the first. But
that's not the point. I refer to that population mentioned above that
have had the meaning I hold true, drilled into them. They are not
going to run to the dictionary, they will react to the use and
possibly discount the message.

Frank