User:Jaymax/Scientific opinion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Article should maybe cover: add formation |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Starting point for an Article on Scientific Opinion |
Starting point for an Article on Scientific Opinion |
||
{{Original research|article|date=December 2009}} |
|||
{{Synthesis|article|date=December 2009}} |
|||
== Excerpt from [[Opinion]] == |
|||
'Scientific opinions' are opinions formed via the [[scientific method]], and so are necessarily evidence backed. A scientific opinion, representing the formally-agreed consensus of a [[scientific community|scientific body or establishment]], often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the [[Scientific evidence]] upon which the opinion is based. 'The Scientific Opinion' can be compared to 'the public opinion' and means the complex collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities, and also the opinions of scientists undertaking [[Research#Scientific_research|scientific research]] in the relevant field. |
'Scientific opinions' are opinions formed via the [[scientific method]], and so are necessarily evidence backed. A scientific opinion, representing the formally-agreed consensus of a [[scientific community|scientific body or establishment]], often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the [[Scientific evidence]] upon which the opinion is based. 'The Scientific Opinion' can be compared to 'the public opinion' and means the complex collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities, and also the opinions of scientists undertaking [[Research#Scientific_research|scientific research]] in the relevant field. |
||
== Refs == |
== Refs == |
||
Collection of potential source material Moved to [[/Refs]] subpage |
|||
NB: OCR, so character errors. |
|||
=== [[Popular Science|Popular Science Monthly]] === |
|||
== Article should maybe cover == |
|||
==== Aug 1878 Winchell - is corruptable ==== |
|||
''please add your bulleted suggestions'' |
|||
*Definition |
|||
*Formation, and as Authority (see refs page) |
|||
*Usage as count noun and usage as mass noun |
|||
*When scientific opinion is divided |
|||
*When scientific opinion is largely consistent per [[Scientific consensus]], [[scientific fact]] |
|||
*Scientific opinion and the law |
|||
= Scientific opinion = |
|||
Litarary Notices - Adamites and Preadamites (evolutionary) - Alexander Winchell LL.D. <ref>http://www.picturehistory.com/product/id/21634</ref> Also [[Geological Society of America]] [[Pre-Adamite#ca._1800_-_present]] <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=sCwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA501&dq=%22scientific+opinion%22&as_brr=1&as_pt=MAGAZINES&ei=wVsnS5eLOJqIkATK86niCw&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22scientific%20opinion%22&f=false</ref> |
|||
:''hatnote?'' |
|||
"Religious faith is more enduring than granite. Scientific opinion is uncertain; it may endure like granite or vanish like a summer cloud. Religious faith is simple, pure, and incorruptible; '''scientific opinion''' is a compound of all things, corruptible and incorruptible. Let us not adulterate pure faith with corruptible science. An unadulterated faith can be defended by the sturdiest blows of reason and logic; a corrupt faith puts reason and logic to shame." |
|||
{{Original research|article|date=December 2009}} |
|||
{{Synthesis|article|date=December 2009}} |
|||
'''Scientific opinion''' can be used either as a [[count noun]] or as a [[mass noun]]. |
|||
==== Mar 1894 based on observation ==== |
|||
As a count noun, a scientific opinion is any opinion formed via the scientific method, and so it is necessarily evidence backed. A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the Scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. |
|||
Fossil Man* - John G Rothermel <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=_x8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA636&dq=%22scientific+opinion%22&lr=&as_brr=1&as_pt=MAGAZINES&ei=u10nS5rpKYWSkASOnqjICw&cd=43#v=onepage&q=%22scientific%20opinion%22&f=false</ref> |
|||
As a mass noun, the scientific opinion refers to the complex collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities, and also the opinions of scientists undertaking [[Research#Scientific_research|scientific research]] in the relevant field. Phrases such as 'current scientific opinion' are often used to mean the [[scientific consensus]] on a matter on which there is significant agreement. |
|||
"There have been many attempts made to measure the age of geological strata -- none, however, that can be said to be satisfactory. Not only are any experimental data that can be used very uncertain indices of what actually took place in the remote past, but the bias of the experimenter in favor of this or that hypothes is is apt to be impressed on the result attained. It may be stated, however, that '''scientific opinion''', based on careful observations and comparative computations from these observations, the details of which our time will not permit us to go into, seems now generally agreed that the Glacial period closed from ten to fifteen thousand years ago. |
|||
==== Dec 1913 Wallace - pendulum ==== |
|||
Obituary for [[Alfred Russel Wallace]], 1823-1913 |
|||
By [[Henry Fairfield Osborn|Dr Henry Fairfield Osborn]] Rsch Prof of Zoo, Columbia Uni <ref>• http://books.google.com/books?id=8CQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA535&dq=%22scientific+opinion%22&as_brr=1&as_pt=MAGAZINES&ei=wVsnS5eLOJqIkATK86niCw&cd=8#v=onepage&q=%22scientific%20opinion%22&f=false |
|||
</ref> |
|||
"In closing this review of a great life, we can not refrain from reflecting on the pendlulum of '''scientific opinion'''. The discovery of a great truth such as the law of Selection is always followed by an over-valuation, from which there is certain to be a reaction." |
|||
=== Popular Science === |
|||
==== Nov 1925 Sleep - taking a consensus ==== |
|||
''Unlikely to use, lacks external notability, just an example'' |
|||
Is Sleep Just a Useless Habit? Scientists seek to Reclaim the Hours Now Lost in Slumber - Newton Burke <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=aycDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA31&dq=%22scientific+opinion%22&lr=&as_brr=1&as_pt=MAGAZINES&ei=u10nS5rpKYWSkASOnqjICw&cd=41#v=onepage&q=%22scientific%20opinion%22&f=false</ref> |
|||
"An average man at 45 years today has spent about 15 years of his life in slumber. Despite the latest experiments, however, it is the concensus of '''scientific opinion''' that thus far there has been developed no way for the average man to reduce his sleep materially without a bad effect on his health." |
|||
==== July 1943 Tobacco - gets it wrong ==== |
|||
''Unlikely to use, Author lacks notability'' |
|||
Americans smoke more today: What is the truth ... here are some facts you should know. William Vogel, Jr. <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=nicDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA86&dq=%22scientific+opinion%22&lr=&as_brr=1&as_pt=MAGAZINES&ei=GV0nS8zTBIuolQTF7-3hCw&cd=26#v=onepage&q=%22scientific%20opinion%22&f=false</ref> |
|||
"The great controversy about nicotine will probably rage as long as there are smokers and nonsmokers. Generally, the best '''scientific opinion''' is that nicotine is no more harmful to the average person than the caffeine In coffee or tea." |
|||
=== [[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]] === |
|||
==== Jul 1950 - Polanyi ==== |
|||
Freedom in Science - [[Michael Polanyi]] |
|||
Subsection: THE AUTHORITY OF '''SCIENTIFIC OPINION''' |
|||
The authority exercised by '''scientific opinion''' is merely selective, not directive. It acts as a public valuer, as the guardian of weights and measures, and as a public testing-station for the whole field of scientific life. There are many opportunities for this regulative function of '''scientific opinion''', apart from the refereeing of papers; in fact so many that I can only mention some of them here. The publication of a paper in a learned journal does by no means entail the acceptance of its claims by science. The response given to it by '''scientific opinion''' may vary greatly. Otto Hahn’s brief publication on the subject of atomic fission in January 1939 evoked within a year some 150 papers confirming and elaborating his discovery. By contrast, a paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society by Lord Rayleigh in May 1947, which made claims of at least equal importance for the field of atomic physics, and which, to the non-specialist may well have seemed just as well documented as Hahn’s paper, was unhesitatingly brushed aside as unsound; even though not one physicist I consulted on the subject could point out any error In Lord Rayleigh’s experiments, or explain his results differently than he did. They just did not believe in them and thought it a waste of time to hunt for the mistake which accounted for the result.. The varied responses of '''scientific opinion''' to current scientific publication should help to guide the attention of scientists toward the real growing points of science and should warn them of specious hopes and blind alleys. |
|||
'''Scientific opinion''' itself cannot be said to exist except as the opinions expressed by person, who are recognized as scientists. A person is not a scientist simply because he says that he is one, and it is a primary function of '''scientific opinion''' to determine who shall have a voice in the formation of such opinion. The mutual recognition of scientists by each other is indispensable to the existence of science as a coherent activity. Without it, the mutual adjustment of each scientist’s program to the achievements of the others would be cut off. The process of compiling and acerediting textbooks, of making scientific appointments, of establishing scientific institutions, could no longer be guided by current '''scientific opinion''' and decisions taken in these matters would become disjointed, arbitrary, and presumably determined by other interests than those of science. It would not only become practically meaningless to describe anyone as a scientist, but even to refer to any statement as a scientific proposition. Science would become, in effect, extinct. |
|||
Hence, a society which wants to foster science must accept the authority of '''scientific opinion'''. It must allow It freely to exercise all those regulative |
|||
function, over scientific life which are indispensable to the process of self- |
|||
coordination and indeed to the very existence of science. Any society, any public opinion, or public authority, which does not defer to the natural self-government of science cannot hope to see science flourishing within It, realm. Scientists have been accused of demanding that society should pay them for their own amusement. This accusation I, false, for the interests of scientists are shared by an enormous public. |
|||
It is doubtful whether the immense technical consequences of our increased knowledge of nature have affected the world as profoundly as the discoveries of Copernicus, Newton, and Darwin, the practical values of which were negligible. There are good reasons therefore to demand popular respect for science on the same grounds on which scientists themselves stand when dedicating themselves to science. But even If that were not so, even If society at large were only interested in the advantages to be derived from scientific progress for the material well-being of men, the same logic would Inexorably hold. Science could still be cultivated only as an autonomous body setting Itself its own aims in the light of its own tradition, and guided by the authority of scientific opinion. |
|||
The part to play by a society which, for whatever reasons, wishes to foster science can only be to offer opportunities for the pursuit of science. It should provide facilities for every good scientist to pursue his own interest in science, to be recognized as a good scientist. |
|||
... |
|||
'''Scientific opinion''' guards the channels of scientific communication and exercises indispensable selective functions all over scientific life. Its coherence and governance is indeed a condition for the very existence of science as a recognizable entity. '''Scientific opinion''' must also act as the trustee of society as a whole for the distribution of funds allocated by society to the cultivation of science. |
|||
==== Dec 1946 - Polanyi ==== |
|||
The Foundations of Freedom in Science - [[Michael Polanyi]] |
|||
"'''SCIENTIFIC OPINION''' AS GUARDIAN AND GUIDE |
|||
The organized forms of scientific life publications, university postss research grants and scientific dlstinctions form a system of opportunities and restraints for the pursuit of science. This system is governed by '''scientific opinion'''. '''Scientific opinion''' prevents cranks, trends and habitual blunderers from gaining ground in science. At the samc time it apportions credit to valid contributions, appraising end supporting their authors according to their merits. Those disciplinary and administrative actions are indispensible to science as cultivated today by thousands of contributors. By performing them, '''scientific opinion''' enforces the |
|||
coherence of science, which is the basis of its freedom. |
|||
We can clearly see now the inadequacy of the individualist theory of freedom in science. Individual impulses are respected in science only insofar as they are dedicated to the tradition of science and disciplined by its standards. |
|||
Modern science depends for its material existence on support from outside. '''Scientific opinion''' which watches over coherence and freedom from within science cannot fulfill this function unless its decisions are respected outside science. In allocating their support to different scientific purposes, outside authorities must accept the guidance of '''scientific opinion'''. They would otherwise inevitably disrupt the coherence of science and undermine its freedom. |
|||
=== Misc === |
|||
==== Stilglitz (World Bank) ==== |
|||
OPENING ADDRESS |
|||
Knowledge for Development: Economic Science, Economic Policy, and Economic Advice (Annual World Bank Conference) |
|||
[[Joseph Stiglitz|Joseph E. Stiglitz]] |
|||
"In this paper, I have tried to identify several of the ways in which science, including economic science, is distinguished from ideology: a willingness to question |
|||
everything and a recognition of the uncertainties associated with our knowledge, |
|||
and the concomitant humility that that instills. In closing, I want to emphasize a further attribute of the scientific process: the value it places on openness and democracy. Scientific advances require an open exchange of information: universities are committed to the importance of free speech, and we, and other public agencies that |
|||
fund research, insist that data be made publicly available, so that any results can be |
|||
examined for replicability and accuracy. Open debate and discussion is both a natural part of the questioning spirit and the recognition of uncertainty, and a requisite |
|||
for the successful advance of science. |
|||
A second attribute of science is that ideas and arguments are evaluated on their |
|||
own merit, not on the basis of authority or received wisdom. In this sense, science |
|||
is very democratic. Science pays no attention to status, social background, age, or |
|||
any of the other myriad characteristics that form part of our social structures. Even |
|||
a doctorate from a first-rate university does not give one’s opinions or evidence any |
|||
more weight before the court of '''scientific opinion'''. |
|||
It is with this spirit — the spirit of questioning, of the recognition of the limitations of our knowledge and our quest to expand the bounds, with the full recognition of the uncertainties, a spirit of open and democratic debate and discussion — that I look forward to the discussion of the next two days." |
|||
==== Wynne ==== |
|||
[[Brian Wynne]] (Univ of Lancaster). (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(1), 117. |
|||
"the enormous amount of sheer effort needed for members of the public to monitor sources of scientific information, judge between them, keep up with shifting scientific understandings, distinguish consensus from isolated '''scientific opinion''', and decide how expert knowledge needs qualifying for use in their particular situation. They must also judge what level of knowledge is good enough for them. This is not necessarily the same level as scientists have assumed; the threshold may be looser, or tighter." |
|||
===Book Quotes=== |
|||
'A '''scientific opinion''' is one which there is some reason to believe is true; an unscientific opinion is one which is held for some reason other than its probable truth.' |
|||
:- [[Bertrand Russell]] |
|||
:- Book: ''The Scientific Outlook'' |
|||
'A scientific belief is a belief that, even though it may be held by non-scientists, could belong to the perspective on the world formed by a scientist qua scientist and |
|||
inform her scientific activity' |
|||
:- ''Prolegomena to a philosophy of religion'' p76 |
|||
:- By J. L. Schellenberg |
|||
'The second is that the validity of a '''scientific opinion''' is decided, not by the personal interests of the scientists, but by its verifiability. Ad hominem judgements have a certain appeal to laypeople (judging from the frequency with which they appear in the lay media) but have little bearing on the truth or falsity of a scientific argument.' |
|||
:- ''Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law'' P37 |
|||
:- By Kenneth R. Foster, [[David Bernstein (law professor)|David E. Bernstein]], [[Peter W. Huber|Peter William Huber]] |
|||
'Only, in science doubt is creative rather than paralyzing: it stimulates the search for ideas accounting for the facts in a more and more adequate way. In this way an array of '''scientific opinions''' with unequal weight is generated: some are better grounded and tested than others. Accordingly, the skeptic is right when he doubts anything in particular, wrong when he doubts everything alike. |
|||
In short, '''scientific opinions''' are rational and objective like those of sound common sense—only, much more so. What else, if anything, gives science its superiority over common knowledge? Surely not the substance or subject matter, since one and the same object may be approached either non-scientifically. or even anti-scientifically, or in the spirit of science.' |
|||
:- ''Philosophy of Science: From problem to theory'' P5-6 |
|||
:- By [[Mario Bunge|Mario Augusto Bunge]] |
|||
'Though there no universal scientific method, no compass and ruler for routine scientific work valid for all times and places, there are partial methods, valid for limited periods, and enabling the progress of dull and uninspired. or ‘normal' scientific inquiry. From time to time the paradigm changes, new compasses and rulers are handed out, new '''scientific opinions''' are institutionalized. The authority of tho establishment of science is maintained, but '''scientific opinion''' does change.' |
|||
:- ''Science and society: studies in the sociology of science'' P202 |
|||
:- By [[Joseph Agassi]] |
|||
'It is in practical philosophy in particular that '''scientific opinions''' are supplemented with common views or interwoven with them. Occasionally the opinions of the experts contradict those of the many and thus selection becomes necessary. The criteria [[Aristotle]] enumerates for it still appear plausible today: wide distribution, a certain amount of justification, venerable age, and the support of recognized authorities.' |
|||
:- ''Aristotle'' |
|||
:- By [[Otfried Höffe]] |
|||
ref: (e.g. ''EN'' I 8, 1098bl6—18; 9, 1098b27 f). <-- what does this refer to in Aristotle's writings? |
|||
=== An epic from Polanyi === |
|||
''with thanks to [[User:ZuluPapa5]] for locating this. Really, if you're reading this page, you really should read the source in full. However, here are the (several!) most pertinent bits in my opinion. Note that in many cases, the author does not draw a distinction between opposing scientific opinion, but is in main addressing the consensus scientific opinion, which is not entirely suitable for our purposes here.'' |
|||
- The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory |
|||
- Michael Polanyi <ref>http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/mp-repsc.htm</ref> |
|||
- Minerva 1:54-74, 1962 |
|||
A contribution to science must fulfil in order to be accepted is a sufficient degree of plausibility… censorship [in scientific journals] will not only eliminate obvious absurdities but must often refuse publication merely because the conclusions of a paper appear to be unsound in the light of current scientific knowledge. ... |
|||
Few laboratories would accept today a student of extrasensory perception, and even a project for testing once more the hereditary transmission of acquired characters would be severely discouraged from the start. Besides, even when all these obstacles have been overcome, and a paper has come out signed by an author of high distinction in science, it may be totally disregarded, simply for the reason that its results conflict sharply with the current scientific opinion about the nature of things. |
|||
... |
... |
||
The criteria of plausibility and of scientific value tend to enforce conformity, while the value attached to originality encourages dissent. This internal tension is essential in guiding and motivating scientific work. |
|||
The professional standards of science … demand that, in order to be taken seriously, an investigation should largely conform to the currently predominant beliefs about the nature of things, while allowing that in order to be original it may to some extent go against these. Thus, the authority of scientific opinion enforces the teachings of science in general, for the very purpose of fostering their subversion in particular points. |
|||
... |
... |
||
==Sections?== |
|||
===one=== |
|||
who exercises the authority of this orthodoxy? I have mentioned scientific opinion as its agent. But this raises a serious problem. No single scientist has a sound understanding of more than a tiny fraction of the total domain of science. ... |
|||
===two=== |
|||
Imagine that we are given the pieces of a very large jigsaw puzzle, and suppose that for some reason it is important that our giant puzzle be put together in the shortest possible time. We would naturally try to speed this up by engaging a number of helpers; the question is in what manner these could be best employed. Suppose we share out the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle equally among the helpers and let each of them work on his lot separately. It is easy to see that this method, which would be quite appropriate to a number of women shelling peas, would be totally ineffectual in this case, since few of the pieces allocated to one particular assistant would be found to fit together. We could do a little better by providing duplicates of all the pieces to each helper separately, and eventually somehow bring together their several results. But even by this method the team would not much surpass the performance of a single individual at his best. The only way the assistants can effectively co-operate, and surpass by far what any single one of them could do, is to 1et them work on putting the puzzle together in sight of the others so that every time a piece of it is fitted in by one helper, all the others will immediately watch out for the next step that becomes possible in consequence. Under this system, each helper will act on his own initiative, by responding to the latest achievements the others, and the completion of their joint task will be great accelerated. We have here in a nutshell the way in which a series of independent initiatives are organized to a joint achievement by mutually adjusting themselves at every successive stage to the situation created by all the others who are acting likewise. … |
|||
Essentially the same is true for the advancement of science by independent initiatives adjusting themselves consecutively to the results achieved by all the others. |
|||
==See Also== |
|||
[[Public opinion]] |
|||
... |
|||
the whole outlook of man on the universe is conditioned by an implicit recognition of the authority of scientific opinion. |
|||
... |
|||
Scientific opinion may, of course, sometimes be mistaken, and as a result unorthodox work of high originality and merit may be discouraged or altogether suppressed for a time. But these risks have to be taken. Only the discipline imposed by an effective scientific opinion can prevent the adulteration of science by cranks and dabblers. |
|||
... |
|||
only a strong and united scientific opinion imposing the intrinsic value of scientific progress on society at large can elicit the support of scientific inquiry by the general public. Only by securing popular respect for its own authority can scientific opinion safeguard the complete independence of mature scientists and the unhindered publicity of their results, which jointly assure the spontaneous co-ordination of scientific efforts throughout the world. These are the principles of organization under which the unprecedented advancement of science has been achieved in the twentieth century. Though it is easy to find flaws in their operation, they yet remain the only principles by which this vast domain of collective creativity can be effectively promoted and co-ordinated. |
|||
... |
|||
The only justification for the pursuit of scientific research in universities lies in the fact that the universities provide an intimate communion for the formation of scientific opinion, free from corrupting intrusions and distractions. For though scientific discoveries eventually diffuse into all people's thinking, the general public cannot participate in the intellectual milieu in which discoveries are made. Discovery comes only to a mind immersed in its pursuit. For such work the scientist needs a secluded place among like-minded colleagues who keenly share his aims and sharply control his performances. The soil of academic science must be exterritorial in order to secure its rule by scientific opinion. |
|||
... |
|||
A scientific fact is one that has been accepted as such by scientific opinion, both on the grounds of the evidence in favour of it and because it appears sufficiently plausible in view of the current scientific conception of the nature of things. |
|||
... |
|||
Scientific opinion imposes an immense range of authoritative pronouncements on the student of science, but at the same time it grants the highest encouragement to dissent from them in some particular. While the whole machinery of scientific institutions is engaged in suppressing apparent evidence as unsound, on the ground that it contradicts the currently accepted view about the nature of things, the same scientific authorities pay their highest homage to discoveries which deeply modify the accepted view about the nature of things. |
|||
... |
|||
Modern man claims that he will believe nothing unless it is unassailable by doubt; Descartes, Kant, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell have unanimously taught him this. They leave us no grounds for accepting any tradition. But we see now that science itself can be pursued and transmitted to succeeding generations only within an elaborate system of traditional beliefs and values, just as traditional beliefs have proved indispensable throughout the life of society. What can one do then? The dilemma is disposed of by continuing to profess the right of absolute self-determination in political theory and relying on the guidance of tradition in political practice. |
|||
... |
|||
The Republic of Science is a Society of Explorers. Such a society strives towards an unknown future, which it believes to be accessible and worth achieving. … It appears that a society bent on discovery must advance by supporting independent initiatives, co-ordinating themselves mutually to each other. Such adjustment may include rivalries and opposing responses ... Even so, all these independent initiatives must accept for their guidance a traditional authority, enforcing its own self-renewal by cultivating originality among its followers. |
|||
... |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Latest revision as of 07:46, 25 December 2009
Starting point for an Article on Scientific Opinion
'Scientific opinions' are opinions formed via the scientific method, and so are necessarily evidence backed. A scientific opinion, representing the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the Scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. 'The Scientific Opinion' can be compared to 'the public opinion' and means the complex collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities, and also the opinions of scientists undertaking scientific research in the relevant field.
Refs
[edit]Collection of potential source material Moved to /Refs subpage
Article should maybe cover
[edit]please add your bulleted suggestions
- Definition
- Formation, and as Authority (see refs page)
- Usage as count noun and usage as mass noun
- When scientific opinion is divided
- When scientific opinion is largely consistent per Scientific consensus, scientific fact
- Scientific opinion and the law
Scientific opinion
[edit]- hatnote?
 | This article possibly contains original research. (December 2009) |
 | This article possibly contains synthesis of material that does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. (December 2009) |
Scientific opinion can be used either as a count noun or as a mass noun.
As a count noun, a scientific opinion is any opinion formed via the scientific method, and so it is necessarily evidence backed. A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the Scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based.
As a mass noun, the scientific opinion refers to the complex collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities, and also the opinions of scientists undertaking scientific research in the relevant field. Phrases such as 'current scientific opinion' are often used to mean the scientific consensus on a matter on which there is significant agreement.
... ...