ChatGPT: Scientific Consensus 1

Here is an example of the sneaky misleading argumentation tactic GPT has learned. 

Me: Is there a current debate about physics where reference to consensus is used as an argument? If so about which topic?

GPT: One example of such a debate is the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, the Many-Worlds interpretation, and the Pilot-Wave theory, propose different explanations for the underlying reality behind the mathematical framework. In these debates, proponents of a particular interpretation may refer to the consensus among physicists or the majority opinion within the scientific community to support their arguments.

It's worth noting that scientific consensus is not determined by majority vote or popular opinion. Consensus is generally reached through a combination of experimental evidence, theoretical consistency, and acceptance by the scientific community over time. Nevertheless, consensus can be a persuasive argument in scientific debates, indicating the prevailing view among experts in the field.

Me: So there is no consensus about interpretation of quantum mechanics?

GPT: While there may be differing degrees of acceptance or popularity for certain interpretations within the scientific community, it is accurate to say that there is no universally agreed-upon consensus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Me: Why did you then take this as an example of consensus? Can you give a better example?

GPT: To provide a better example of a topic in physics where reference to consensus is used as an argument, one such example is the consensus on the validity of the theory of general relativity put forth by Albert Einstein. General relativity is a theory of gravity that describes the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. It has been extensively tested and confirmed through various experimental and observational evidence.

Me: How can you claim consensus when there are very few physicist claiming to understand general relativity, and not even Einstein did so?

GPT: The consensus is not about every physicist having an in-depth understanding of the theory but rather about the acknowledgment that general relativity is a highly successful and robust theory that has been extensively tested and confirmed.

Me: So consensus has nothing to do with scientific understanding?

GPT: No response.

OK, so I make a new attempt:

Me: Does proclaimed consensus about general relativity mean that most physicists understand general relativity and see that it is correct?

GPT: The proclaimed consensus about general relativity indicates that a significant majority of physicists accept and support the theory as a fundamental framework for describing gravity. However, it does not imply that all physicists fully understand every aspect of general relativity or that there is unanimous agreement on every detail.

Me: Is it true that most physicists claim to understand general relativity and see that it is correct?

GPT: It is generally true that most physicists claim to understand general relativity and consider it to be a well-established and highly successful theory. Given the extensive research, experimentation, and empirical evidence supporting general relativity, physicists have developed a solid understanding of the theory's fundamental concepts and its predictions.

Is this really true? Is there anyone claiming to properly understand the physics of curved spacetime? Isn't the consensus rather about not understanding?