Consensus Conditioning

“Consensus Conditioning” has two meanings.
1) The conditioning determines the creation of consensus.
2) Consensus determines the conditioning.
The following looks at both meanings, the relation between them and the cause of their vicious cycle.

• Is scientific Consensus the result of the same principles that turn phase into atoms, molecules and matter?
• Or is scientific consensus based on the same principles by which sensations form realisation, ideas and thoughts?
• Perhaps scientific consensus is imply part of languaging, with sounds acquiring meaning as words, phrases and stories.
• Yet there is good reason to assume that human, animal, vegetative and cellular responses too determine "consensus".

Introduction

What we hold to be real and true (in science) is neither true nor real.
Everything known in science was one believed to be otherwise, and described otherwise.
Science is and ongoing process - an ongoing social discourse.
In retrospect we can decide that belief was the main force in consensus in science; this probably is true for the present also.

Scientific Consensus is an agreement on ideas on findings in Nature.
This agreement is based on people in a community performing a craft as a profession.
Money, community politics, social relationships and personal realisation all affect how we, together, come to view nature.
It is evident that science is an amalgamate, a composite, a construct; a cultural creation: why do we not know 'how this manufacture of consensus works'.

Science is very definitely a belief, a cult, a creed, a religion.
The sheer belief that anybody can be an 'outsider observer' belies the direct involvement of the observer:

• The observer selects what part of nature us addressed, set aside, confined to a laboratory or otherwise studied.
• The observer selects the set-up, the protocol, the organisation and thereby restricts/determines the outcome.
• The observer interprets the findings, selects measures to gauge the results, doctors the data and selects where it is printed.
• The only observer who does not influence the observation of the outsider who does not observe; but that still alters the context of the field of observation...

We can only conclude (as did quantum physics) that observers always determine the outcome of the observation (this is called the collapse of the vector of State).

There are so many subjective, personal, status-driven and reward-oriented decisions in the whole process, that it is clear that the observer determines the outcome.
The camera man, taking a picture of birds on the other bank of a river, creates a thought field to which life forms are responsive; and the birds may be seen to respond..
Chemists create the context and conditions for the chemical reactions; the reaction process will respond correspondingly (See also the intent experiment of Bill Tiller).
Mathematician select which variables they consider in their equations; Dimensional Analysis points out how this defines their limits of observation.

Does that mean that we need to discern different types of scientific involvement, in humanities, biology, chemistry and physical science?
Or do we simply need to agree that there are different types of involvement in science, and all play a role in  each form of science; including the creating of consensus in science?
The whole model of the existence of scientific consensus is so much based on the current consensus model of science, that it is clear that we are involved in a vicious reasoning cycle.
This means that we cannot consider scientific consensus itself separate from the result that it creates, the construct of science.

Consensus on Consensus ... (?)

Consensus is nowadays often presented as a technique in which the process of publication is in effect 'turned upside down'.
Meta-Studies (by a statistician) are used as if representative for Study Reviews (by Academics) on Clinical Studies or Experimentation’s (by PhD's) on Practical Findings (most often by non-publishing workers in the field or students).
The emergence of science however follows the inverse trail: first there is a new insight, which is perhaps Noted, maybe leads to correspondence with colleges and - if we are lucky - is published.
The emergence of insight however ha a deeper basis: the observer must be alert to newness, thus open minded, this not be distracted by expectations, while interacting with our natural context.

The discussions about (conditioning) Scientific Consensus are more about protocol, agenda and status than about understanding consensus.
Many people discussing consensus simply take the process of consensus itself for granted; as if it is the same as in achieving political, religious or practical communal agreement.
What these discussions - intentionally? - ignore is the role of personal interests, economic corruption, religious bias and simple seduction.
What is known the the making of a president, the creation of a pop idol, preaching and ideal, or sales advertising applies also, is also applied, to science.

Achieving (scientific) consensus pre-requires the understanding of the nature of consensus.
This is not the debate of negotiation on who will determine what is ‘true’, or how to determine what is ‘real’.
Such debates - although they are still taking place - are obsolete by understanding that reality does not exist; reality is a realisation.
The discussion can thus never be about the consensus of science; but always will need to be about the consensus on realisation.

Immediately this makes clear that ‘consensus on realisation’ is a conundrum.
There will be no objective consensus on subjective realisation.
Objectivity is based on a community collective consensus, consensus is based in interpersonal communication, and realisation is based on personal experience; which gain is based on individual cellular function.
The riddle lies in the dimensional relationship between each of the components of the previous sentence.
The following table spells out how these component - and their logic - differ.