Post by gadreel on Dec 14, 2017 17:09:08 GMT
Circumcision most certainly is scientific consensus. Those studies you mentioned were World Health Organization studies, and the World Health Organization is loudly and stridently in favor of circumcision.
Circumcision is a great issue to distinguish between the so called pro-science people (who actually hate science and worship authority) and the so called science deniers (who recognize what garbage that science is). Because the fraud is so blatantly obvious in this case, it’s amusing that people will still refuse to recognize that and insist we take the WHO’s word for it. It parallels all arguments about science. “You’re not a climate scientist!”
In any case, assuming there are studies on the health benefits of circumcision, and assuming that there is a scientific consensus about these health benefits, then all that means is that there is a consensus that circumcision has health benefits. This fact doesn't inevitably lead to any "ought" such as "babies ought to get circumcised." It's entirely possible to recognize the health benefits while still maintaining that circumcision should be a decision left to an individual's autonomy rather than their parents; unless there's a scientific consensus that circumcision has some major health benefits for infants and children.
To parallel this with climate science, climate scientists can tell us whether the climate is changing and how and what the likely consequences will be. There is a consensus about this. Just like with circumcision, these facts/ISes don't inevitably lead to any "ought" about what we should do. Most who accept the facts and don't want to face the consequences think we should make some changes to reduce the effects of climate change. However, far too many don't want to change and try to deny the facts.
Like it or not, for non-experts, scientific consensuses are as close as we can get to knowing what scientists know. Disputing that they know that requires expertise, not feelz.