Quote:I don't think you quite understand the meaning of the word "consensus".
Their was a consensus during the period from 18?? to 1908 that powered heavier than air flight was impossible so reputable science magazines as late as 1907 were printing "learned" articles "debunking" the claims of heavier than air flight and actively ignoring the writing of other scientist that were developing modern aeronautical equations and discarding the writings of two very RIGHT brothers for years after they went to flying thier aircraft.
Quote:As a point of fact, this is an extremely bad example. The Mpemba effect (observed by a Tanzanian school student) was disbelieved and ridiculed by Mpemba's teachers. However, when Dr. Osbourne, a professor of physics, visited Mpemba's school and Mpemba asked himfor an explanation why he had found hot liquids to freeze before cold liquids, he said he didn't know but would conduct the experiment - which he then went on to do, found out the results he did upon repeated experimentation, and gave Mpemba full credit as they jointly released the results. The very same year, a completely unrelated scientist, Dr. Kell, also released a paper about hot water freezing faster than cold water under certain conditions, theorising that it was caused by rate of evaporation. (This particular theory was later debunked; as of yet, what causes the Mpemba effect is hotly debated - it is also worth noting that it only occurs under certain conditions, not ever time you try to freeze a liquid.)
It wasn't until the late 1960's and early 1970's that thermodynamics discovered and admitted that Hot water will freeze before cold water.
Your "example" is an example of scientists being open-minded when laypersons ridiculed a new idea, and that even if Mpemba had never noticed anything, another reputable scientist wrote a paper about the effect the same year (and his incorrect theory about the cause was shown to be incorrect).
In other words, it's showing exactly the opposite of what you want it to.
Quote:This is simply a flat-out falsehood, and shows again that you do not understand what "consensus" is. Nikola Tesla was theorising about what caused ball lightning as early as 1904, and it's well-known that ball lightning killed a Russian scientist who had been attending a meeting of the Academy of Sciences in 1753.
Another Blindness was Ball lightning the general consensus was that ball lightning was impossible so eyewitnesses were ignored and all scientist who developed theories of it existance was ignored.
That some scientists may have thought the phenomena doesn't exist doesn't make that a consensus; it is the opposite of consensus, one theory amongst many. This seems self-evident. It is also worth noting that the scientific method produced an ACTUAL consensus, that of the truth (ball lightning does exist), over time. That is the same sort of actual consensus reached some time ago on global warming.
I suspect you get your information from sources which are actively hostile to the scientific community, of which there are no shortage.