The Growth of Science in Society

"...the principle of mutual authority. It consists in the fact that scientists keep watch over each other; each scientist is both subject to criticism by others and is encouraged by their appreciation. This is how scientific opinion is formed, both enforcing scientific standards and regulating the distribution of professional opportunities and research grants. Naturally, only fellow scientists working in closely related fields are competent to exercise authority over each other; but their restricted fields form chains of overlapping neighborhoods extending over the entire range of sciences.

Thus a an indirect consensus is formed between scientists so far apart  that they could not understand more than a small part of each other's subjects. It is enough that the standards of plausibility and worthwhileness be equal around every single point for this will keep them equal over all the sciences. Scientists from the most distant branches of science will rely then on each other's results and will blindly support each other against any laymen seriously challenging a scientist's professional authority.

This is the way the scientific community is organized. These are the grounds on which science rests. This is the way in which discoveries are made. Science is governed by common beliefs, by values and practices transmitted to succeeding generations. Each new independent member of the scientific community adheres to this tradition, assuming at the same time the responsibility shared by all members for re-interpreting the tradition and, possibly, revolutionizing its teachings."

Michael Polanyi, The Growth of Science in Society, Knowing and Being, pg 84-85, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637.

______________________________________

The renowned Polanyi wrote those words in 1967. While there may have been an element of truth in his statement then perhaps there have been some changes in the 56 years that have elapsed since that simpler time. For instance, computer models intended to predict future conditions in complex, little understood systems, are evidently accepted across portions of the scientific community, the indirect consensus, and that acceptance has spread to the mass media and large elements of the population who are not members of the scientific community. While there is strong disagreement about a number of scientific conclusions within the pertinent scientific community engaged in a particular field, media, government and business seem to embrace the ones that appear to have the most potential for their own financial rewards without considering the economic ramifications for the rest of society. There's little  genuine risk-reward analysis of various scenarios. 

The mutual authority that Polanyi talked about is aware of the funding available for research and the competition among research institutions for those funds. In fact, they are among the competitors for that funding. It is in their financial interest to skew scientific debate in favor of continuing research in ephemeral problems for which there is no solution.