Actually, this illustrates the effectiveness of the scientific method over time (sorry, no pun intended): testing and retesting to get at the truth. Good scientists strive to be corrected.
Yes, it does. It also demonstrates that a consensus can be disproved. though it may take some time. Which is another way of saying that, sometimes, the consensus proves to be wrong.
Absolutely, can't disagree with you there. (But anyone who reads this blog regularly understands that you're back to taking aim at the scientific consensus on manmade climate change, and I personally prefer to rely on the vast majority of scientists when in doubt, especially when the outcome could be potentially catastrophic. If I'm wrong, at least I've erred on the side of caution.) BTW, anyone who is interested should read the comments on the HArrison clockwork piece, some of which clarify the reasons for the original consensus -- and in fact address the question of whether the contemporary Harrison clock differs significantly from his original proposal (materials, for example).
I don't think consensus has any place in science. See the story of Ignaz Semmelweis, just for a start. I am hardly alone in being skeptical of the so-called climate consensus. So is Freeman Dyson. So is James Lovelock. Their credentials are impeccable. Orthodoxy may have a place in religion. It has no place in science.
Allow me to amend that. There is a place for consensus in science — in matters where we can only estimate. I believe the current consensus on dinosaurs places them about 200 million years ago.
You are equating consensus with orthodoxy. They are not identical, at least not necessarily so. Nor does consensus mean validity: it only means that the weight of evidence/observation points to a certain conclusion, which is always open to further proof, revision, or outright rejection as research proceeds.
Perhaps I should add that orthodoxy implies a certain rigidity, whereas consensus, for scientists, is only a starting point -- things already learned -- upon which to build.
No, I was not equating consensus with orthodoxy. I was merely suggesting that it not be treated as orthodoxy. In science, it can only be provisional.