The article challenges the notion of 'scientific consensus,' arguing that it's a political rather than a scientific term. True scientific advancement, it asserts, is based on verifiable evidence, not majority agreement.
The author uses historical examples like the geocentric model and Lombrosian theories to illustrate how widely accepted scientific 'consensuses' have been proven wrong over time. He cites Galileo's conflict with the established scientific consensus as a prime example.
The article raises concerns about modern scientific research being influenced by funding from corporations and political entities. This, the author argues, leads to a biased 'consensus' that benefits specific interests rather than objective truth. The influence of political and financial power in shaping scientific narratives is highlighted.
Ultimately, the piece emphasizes that scientific progress should be driven by empirical observation and rigorous testing, not by political or financial pressures that create a false sense of 'consensus'.