Dr Sohail Ansari

  Can consensus be influenced and still be correct? A scientist may have personal interests. Yet the evidence may still support their conclusion. Influence and truth are not identical concepts.

  Homeopathy and scientific consensus My criticism is: A dominant medical industry may influence what becomes accepted science. That is a claim about institutions and incentives. It is a legitimate subject for investigation. However, from a methodological standpoint, researchers still ask: What evidence supports homeopathy? What evidence opposes it? The existence of commercial interests alone does not settle the question either way.

  My concern about Western scholarly molds My concern is understandable. I am essentially arguing: Some interpretations become dominant because institutions favor them. That possibility cannot simply be dismissed. However, it also does not automatically establish an alternative interpretation. The alternative still requires evidence and argument.

  What if neglected interpretations are unknown? This is a real problem. One cannot evaluate an argument that has never been presented. That is why intellectual diversity can be valuable. But the mere fact that an interpretation is neglected does not prove it is correct.

  How can we know dominant interpretations are wrong? Usually by: presenting alternative evidence, finding contradictions, offering a better explanation. History progresses partly through such challenges.

  What is a sociology-of-knowledge argument? It is an argument about: How social institutions influence what is accepted as knowledge. Examples: universities, governments, publishers, funding bodies.