>>>>In fact everything in science is a consensus.
>>>
>>>?? Consensus is irrelevant in the context of the scientific method.
>>
>>A consensus:= general agreement upon a scientific hypothesis or theory.
>>
>>Scientic facts are in fact fluid because there is a possibility to be proven incorrect/incomplete/inaccurate.
>>
>>For example. One would call the speed of light to be arround 300.000 km/s in a vacuum to be a fact. But is it?
>>Some theoretical physicist argue that there might be 'highways' in the universe where the speed of light is higher than that.
>>
>>Well what is it? Is it a concensus or fact? An absolute fact is rare, as we cannot tell whether there are (rare) circumstances not accounted for in the definition altering the factual conclusion.
>>
>>Note that I very well realise that a consensus, is a much more lose definition where a smaller percentage of pieces of the puzzle are complete, with a much higher degree of uncertainty, But a consensus, should (as in the topic here) have all aspects of the scientific method being so strong that it is hard to argue that the scientific consensus on the question is absolutely false. And this is excactly what I'm arguing here.
>>
>>As I see it:
>>
>>A scientific fact is established through the scientific method not accounting for the unknown unknowns (Which you never can) while a scientific consensus does (i hope) follow the scientific method but with knowing that there are unknown details (known unknowns).
>>
>>Whether we like it or not, neither a scientific fact and a scientific consensus are guaranteed to be free of error or inaccuracy.
>>
>>>>Scientific facts theories are only valid until proven otherwise, upon which the facts theories are redefined.
>>>
>>>Correct - after my amendments. A classic description of the scientific method. If you know this, how can you say consensus has any bearing?
>>
>>I do not agree, see above. Facts are still theories, as absolute facts hardly exist. Just go back in history and count how many times scientific facts were redefined.
>>
>>>The scientific method, and so-called "scientific consensus" are two very different things. Compare on Wikipedia for an overview.
>>
>>Those are apples and oranges. You should compare scientific facts and scientific consensus and they are really more alike than one would think.
>
>Maybe there is a language barrier, but in your arguments you use "fact" when I would use "theory". An explanation of the difference is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science .

Thanks for clearing that up.