First, I'm not a ESL teacher, I am an English Lit teacher. There is a difference but since we are speaking about English as a second language, let me introduce you to the 8 parts of speech, specifically the word class - Adjective as used in scientific or political consensus. An adjective describes or modifies a noun thereby changing or adding to its meaning.
You see this is the trouble with using dictionaries when one doesn't know how to use one. I usually caution children about this.
Anyway, I can see your confusion. You think a scientific consensus is a collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. but you and every denier who uses the term this way are using it incorrectly.
In truth, used this way, Scientific consensus is actually a Political Consensus which "exists when a large proportion of the members of a society (scientific community at large) agree about how decisions regarding the distribution of values should be made.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0767011153
The correct use and meaning of the term Scientific Consensus are that there is a consensus of science. As in: "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11,944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming.
Be careful to note here:
This study and others were concerned not with individual opinions of scientists but with the study abstracts of which only 4014 actually took a position on the cause of recent global warming.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. ... 1/4/048002
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 8/2/024024
UMMMM. Did the scientific method remove the Plate Tectonics hypotheses/theory/argument 60 years ago?
Because, again, back then the "scientific consensus" was that Plate Tectonics was impossible.
(no evidence, no mechanism, etc)
BUT NOW... the NEW scientific consensus is that Plate Tectonics is where it's at.
To put it in layman's terms, you're an English teacher.
Actually "when scientific method removes competing hypotheses, theories and arguments"
... it results in bona fide Scientific FACT... not, as you said, "a scientific consensus".
It seems you also need a lesson on the term FACT and its meaning as well. And I know for a FACT you are not going to like this because
You are conflating Fact, Theory, Hypothesis, and the Scientific method:
A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
Scientific Method is:
Make an observation.
Ask a question.
Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hig ... of-biology
Scientific method does not produce facts it produces better and better hypotheses that lead to a generally accepted theory that stands until new or more information is uncovered by more testing through the scientific method
Hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.
In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome and is testable and falsifiable.)
Therefore your plate tectonics theory is exactly that a theory. The fact that we all agree with it does not in fact make it fact. The same goes with the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution... although in your case being a Christian Zionist Zealot and living in Abbotsford with all the Mennonites I'm not sure you agree on the last one